If it is not broken don’t fix it.


Prerelease Discussion

1 to 50 of 128 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

There is no reason o change bonuses to just change them. What is wrong with an elven cloak giving a competence bonus to what ever skill stealth is tied too.

What is wrong with how wands and gaffs functioned in fist ? Who ever is rioting is making things overly complex for no reason. Make it easy if you want to use a staff or wand when you prepare your spells. Spend 1 point of resonance and you can use a number of charges from that item equal to your total resonance score.

I would like to put forward an idea. Do away with meta magic rods, if you want to use a meta magic ability bind into your staff if you have the feat spend one resonance and is bound to. Your staff. If you don’t have the feat you need to find a caster that has the feat and spend 2000gp per spell level slott. Say you want to add empower and you don’t have the feat it would cost. You 4000gp and 2 points of resonance the day you have it added to your staff. Then when you invest you staff you would sped. 3 resonance an any blasts spells on your staff would be empowered fo that day.

Consumables should not cost any resonance to use. They are basicly temporary resonance batteries. Their creator invested them with power until they are used.


19 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
What is wrong with how wands and gaffs functioned in fist ? Who ever is rioting is making things overly complex for no reason. Make it easy if you want to use a staff or wand when you prepare your spells. Spend 1 point of resonance and you can use a number of charges from that item equal to your total resonance score.

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?

For a character, obtaining powerful items should always be more important than hoarding low power items. It just works better to maintain immersion.

A high level Bard stocking up on CLW wands is as metagamey as it gets, and also the right call for many games.

Therefore, go with the intuitive thing – encourage players to use their powerful items.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Also it is an incredibly reductionist take on game design to focus on one element and go "but this bit wasn't that bad in PF1 (although it was, dozens of different bonus types all stacking together was part of the massive skill swings between characters)" PF2E has changed everything about the game which means everything needs to be evaluated in how it interacts with all the other changes.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Secret Wizard wrote:
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.

Secret Wizard wrote:
For a character, obtaining powerful items should always be more important than hoarding low power items. It just works better to maintain immersion.

Why? If time isn't a factor, why does something NEED to be top of the line? For instance, if time isn't a factor, why not buy 10 1 hour batteries vs 1 10 hour one when the ten hour one is 50 times the cost? It's only makes sense when time/effort is a factor.

Secret Wizard wrote:
A high level Bard stocking up on CLW wands is as metagamey as it gets, and also the right call for many games.

Not in the least. I'd find it metagamey to snub the CLW wands JUST because it's not the highest level/most expensive version out there. Being higher level doesn't require you to throw money away just to get the new, coolest, most highest level item you can.

Secret Wizard wrote:
Therefore, go with the intuitive thing – encourage players to use their powerful items.

I agree with going with what's intuitive but it seems my intuition is different than yours. ;)


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?


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Counterpoint-

If you can change something and make it better than it was, do it. Who doesn't want things to get better?

I mean, by the OP's logic we'd all be playing AD&D still, since that game worked fine. It had problems, but it wasn't "broke."


6 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
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.

Secret Wizard wrote:
For a character, obtaining powerful items should always be more important than hoarding low power items. It just works better to maintain immersion.

Why? If time isn't a factor, why does something NEED to be top of the line? For instance, if time isn't a factor, why not buy 10 1 hour batteries vs 1 10 hour one when the ten hour one is 50 times the cost? It's only makes sense when time/effort is a factor.

Secret Wizard wrote:
A high level Bard stocking up on CLW wands is as metagamey as it gets, and also the right call for many games.

Not in the least. I'd find it metagamey to snub the CLW wands JUST because it's not the highest level/most expensive version out there. Being higher level doesn't require you to throw money away just to get the new, coolest, most highest level item you can.

Secret Wizard wrote:
Therefore, go with the intuitive thing – encourage players to use their powerful items.
I agree with going with what's intuitive but it seems my intuition is different than yours. ;)

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!


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Nothing is broken. Paizo just has to sell more books. Gamers like shiny new things. D&D fifth edition has been outselling Pathfinder despite being the inferior system.

Join the Pathfinder Grognard club. We're staking our claim with the best RPG system made and riding it out until something better comes along.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
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.

Secret Wizard wrote:
For a character, obtaining powerful items should always be more important than hoarding low power items. It just works better to maintain immersion.

Why? If time isn't a factor, why does something NEED to be top of the line? For instance, if time isn't a factor, why not buy 10 1 hour batteries vs 1 10 hour one when the ten hour one is 50 times the cost? It's only makes sense when time/effort is a factor.

Secret Wizard wrote:
A high level Bard stocking up on CLW wands is as metagamey as it gets, and also the right call for many games.

Not in the least. I'd find it metagamey to snub the CLW wands JUST because it's not the highest level/most expensive version out there. Being higher level doesn't require you to throw money away just to get the new, coolest, most highest level item you can.

Secret Wizard wrote:
Therefore, go with the intuitive thing – encourage players to use their powerful items.
I agree with going with what's intuitive but it seems my intuition is different than yours. ;)

You are confusing logic with Intuition. The things you suggest are logical because they are economically viable, but we are talking about fantasy here not economics. When was the last time you read about the hero getting a shiny new treasure and thinking to himself,

"I must sell this as soon as possible to get 3 lesser treasures."

It doesn't happen. It's counter-intuitive. Story-wise, the hero getting (and using) a great treasure is a much better story than the hero selling said treasure to get 3 lesser ones.

Personally, I applaud the effort to make the intuitive thing also a logical choice, even if it means more book-keeping.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Brother Fen wrote:

Nothing is broken. Paizo just has to sell more books. Gamers like shiny new things. D&D fifth edition has been outselling Pathfinder despite being the inferior system.

Join the Pathfinder Grognard club. We're staking our claim with the best RPG system made and riding it out until something better comes along.

If that's true, why have they waited so long to bring out PF2? Why are they planning only one core rulebook instead of 3? Why are they planning to provide it for free online? It seems an awful risk to abandon a tried and true system which is still generating profits in favour of a new product that may be a flop (though hopefully not).

I can't see any basis for that claim in reality. Having lived through (and been put off by) WotC's profit culture, I can say I really don't get that vibe here at all. Their motive seems to genuinely be to provide a better product. Sure, they will generate profits in the process, but that's a necessary part of corporate economics, and their survival as a corporate entity is what will keep this product supported in the years to come, providing enjoyment for all it's fans.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Its weird the duality of people in the US to simultaneously praise and curse capitalism. Kind of interesting. I wonder if there is research on that...>.>


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Brother Fen wrote:

D&D fifth edition has been outselling Pathfinder despite being the inferior system.

Not inferior, just a different approach. 5th Ed is like 3rd Ed Lite.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:

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.

This makes me think that there might be some kind of unknown horrible environment impact to golarion from spent wands and maybe the resonance system is being introduced intentionally by a secret society of wizards hell bent on getting rid of toxic wand casings.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
graystone wrote:

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.

This makes me think that there might be some kind of unknown horrible environment impact to golarion from spent wands and maybe the resonance system is being introduced intentionally by a secret society of wizards hell bent on getting rid of toxic wand casings.

And that secret society is comprised of goblins.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Secret Wizard wrote:
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.

Quote:
For a character, obtaining powerful items should always be more important than hoarding low power items. It just works better to maintain immersion.

Disagree. Sure, in Borderlands, or Destiny or some "loot" video game, that's true. You're expected to just throw away old stuff because bigger is always better. But that's a poor simulation of real-life experiences. Again, sure, many folks are living in a throw-away-the-old-iPhone-every-12-months lifestyle, but there are many, many products in our world that we don't unnecessarily upgrade just because we can. Get a raise at work... you don't throw away all your shoes and immediately replace them. You might buy something new and fancy you couldn't afford before, but you don't replace your mundanes. And above low-level, "get healed slowly" is a mundane task.

Quote:

A high level Bard stocking up on CLW wands is as metagamey as it gets, and also the right call for many games.

Therefore, go with the intuitive thing – encourage players to use their powerful items.

Sorry, but I just don't parse it that way at all. I see it 100% backwards from the way you describe it.

In the real world, if there was a such a thing as these spells, the way PF1 works is how pricing would actually work. If manufacturing "CLW pills" was possible in a low-cost factory with low-cost labour and low-cost high-availability components, they'd be sold for a certain amount. And if a "CSW pill" was possible but required an expensive process to make, with only a handful of workers worldwide being able to run the factory, and it required unobtanium to make, it would be priced much higher. Both products would be sold. And some people would buy CLW pills to get better after they fall down the stairs, and some people would buy CSW pills because they could afford them, and didn't want to wait the extra week to get better. But here's the clincher: a household that could afford CSW pills wouldn't necessarily buy them all the time, because the CLW product is so much cheaper, and if you're not in a massive hurry to get better, waiting is worth it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Secret Wizard wrote:
Quote:
What is wrong with how wands and gaffs functioned in fist ? Who ever is rioting is making things overly complex for no reason. Make it easy if you want to use a staff or wand when you prepare your spells. Spend 1 point of resonance and you can use a number of charges from that item equal to your total resonance score.

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?

For a character, obtaining powerful items should always be more important than hoarding low power items. It just works better to maintain immersion.

A high level Bard stocking up on CLW wands is as metagamey as it gets, and also the right call for many games.

Therefore, go with the intuitive thing – encourage players to use their powerful items.

This is where I favor Resonence as attunment cost, not use cost. If you need to attune to a wand to use it It still resolves the issue of "I want the powerful wand over lots of weak ones"

but having to spend energy to use a potion or scroll, particularly ones I made my self. That's asinine


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
If you can change something and make it better than it was, do it. Who doesn't want things to get better?

Better is relative, and subjective. Your post assumes that the particular change being discussed is better. The assertion the OP is making is that it's not better, it's just change.

Just because something is different and because it is new does not mean it's better. Cancer cells would be an excellent - if hyperbolic - example of this.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Anguish wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
If you can change something and make it better than it was, do it. Who doesn't want things to get better?

Better is relative, and subjective. Your post assumes that the particular change being discussed is better. The assertion the OP is making is that it's not better, it's just change.

Just because something is different and because it is new does not mean it's better. Cancer cells would be an excellent - if hyperbolic - example of this.

True and keep in mind that works both ways. It being bad is also subjective and relative. Some people not liking it doesn't equal it being bad as well.


Just give me some sort of rest healing mechanic like Starfinder so that I can be fully healed between combats and leave healing with wands and spells for in combat healing.


I'm having a real hard time thinking "why people care so much about a single wand".

I think the issue is with pricing. If something heals 4d6 in 4 turns, and something heals 4d6 in 1 turn, they should cost the same.
If that were the case, no one would be spamming CLW.
On the other hand, even if you have a CSW Wand, you woudldn't use it in combat, it's not effective. You'd still use your own spells or much better options.

Being full HP after every single fight it's not "real life like" neither. You don't get into a fight, take some pills and are A-ok for another fight.

This could also be solved by having thresholds. Maybe CLW wounds can only heal you from 75% to 100% and if you're below that you need a CMW. It's annoying, and takes too much tracking.
That's why I'm in favor of this new system.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Letric wrote:


I think the issue is with pricing. If something heals 4d6 in 4 turns, and something heals 4d6 in 1 turn, they should cost the same.

The 1 turn one is obviously better though. Unless you start including other difference. But if something is better it should cost more of something, otherwise the worse version might as well not exist.

For example ig the 1 turn version took 3 actions but got all the healing out at once, while the 4 turn version required only 1 action I can see them being worth the same. But not how things are currently presented.


Malk_Content wrote:
Letric wrote:


I think the issue is with pricing. If something heals 4d6 in 4 turns, and something heals 4d6 in 1 turn, they should cost the same.

But if something is better it should cost more of something, otherwise

the worse version might as well not exist.

If something is better then CLW should costs MORE, not less, because IT IS better, that's why everyone uses it.

Who honestly uses Wands in Combat? And I mean Wands for healing. You just don't. If you get a Wand of level 4, you sell it, because you can buy 10 CLW Wands, or something even better.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Lou Diamond wrote:
There is no reason o change bonuses to just change them. What is wrong with an elven cloak giving a competence bonus to what ever skill stealth is tied too.

Unless I've gotten something horribly wrong somewhere most bonuses don't stack with their own type now. So there's proficiency modifier, your stat mod, competency bonus, and item bonus. I can't remember any other existing bonuses as mentioned yet (so if I'm missing any please could someone let me know).

The devs seem to want magic items to stay useful (though they have suggested they want them to be less necessary) and seem to have accounted for their ability to swing in the new maths, an item bonus lets them standardise that and account for it as stated (which is pretty useful for estimating challenge difficulty). While they could just stick it under competency bonus, then it would be competing with spells (e.g. knock), conditions, and I suspect feats. This way your legendary sneakthief rogue-wizard can make good use of some Boots of Good Sneaking, rather than being in the weird position of being so good at sneaking that the boots can't help. The new maths and approach towards streamlining (though as people note it isn't perfectly followed everywhere in the system) seems to have had more influence here than change for the sake of change for bonuses.

Lou Diamond wrote:


What is wrong with how wands and gaffs functioned in fist ? Who ever is rioting is making things overly complex for no reason. Make it easy if you want to use a staff or wand when you prepare your spells. Spend 1 point of resonance and you can use a number of charges from that item equal to your total resonance score.

While I don't like the idea of charges and resonance cost going side by side (I mostly really don't like X/day powers or charges though to be honest), "pay one resonance to get access to a number of charges equal to your maximum resonance" sounds potentially more complicated than "you can use this X times, every time you do so you need to pay resonance" IMO. The latter is more tedious and less interesting but it never changes and seems comparatively clear.

There's another issue with your suggestion, it would functionally allow up to a bonus number of spell casts equal to your resonance score squared. E.g. let's look at a sorc for the first 4 levels (given that you probs aren't going to be buying piles of wands at level one, in practice this could be way worse) assuming 18 charisma as that should be trivial for a sorc to stat with.

Level 1: 25 casts.
Level 2: 36 casts.
Level 3: 49 casts.
Level 4: 64 casts.

If you're going to use max charges there as well it becomes "You can do this X times, pay 1 resonance to let you use a number of those uses equal to your total resonance" which is probably not very clear.

Lou Diamond wrote:


I would like to put forward an idea. Do away with meta magic rods, if you want to use a meta magic ability bind into your staff if you have the feat spend one resonance and is bound to. Your staff. If you don’t have the feat you need to find a caster that has the feat and spend 2000gp per spell level slott. Say you want to add empower and you don’t have the feat it would cost. You 4000gp and 2 points of resonance the day you have it added to your staff. Then when you invest you staff you would sped. 3 resonance an any blasts spells on your staff would be empowered fo that day.

I like the idea of being able to stick metamagics into a stick, I might steal it. Thanketh. Maybe it's just a pet peeve though but "find person in world with class feature or spell X and pay them Y for it" felt really gamey and immersion breaking for me in 3.x. I'd just generally like to steer clear of PCs looking for NPCs with very specific class abilities. Unrelated asides, but 2000GP sounds like a hell of a lot in PF2.

Lou Diamond wrote:


Consumables should not cost any resonance to use. They are basicly temporary resonance batteries. Their creator invested them with power until they are used.

This is fair, I can get behind it. Of course, I'd think that some consumables either will or should be strong enough to use resonance, and it's possible this was left in so that there wasn't a generally optimal playstyle with regards to spending cash and trying to skimp on resonance.

There is one big plus side here though, it gives an in universe reason to have a world with NPCs whose lives are awful. If your potion of Cure Purple Legs isn't reliable on your meagre 0th level NPC 10 charisma resonance and the Dread-Curse of Purple Legs comes around every couple of days then chances are that your NPCs has purple legs. This might seem small but as a GM you can bet I'm going to milk this for all the drama it's worth, and allows me to run a high magic world out of the box without weird gaping logic holes about why everything is still bad.

Malk_Content wrote:


The 1 turn one is obviously better though. Unless you start including other difference. But if something is better it should cost more of something, otherwise the worse version might as well not exist.

This sort of idea towards trade-offs is something I think might be interesting in the resonance system. You aren't just looking at most bang for your buck, you're looking at most efficient usage in a specific day. It's possible lower grade things are still drastically cheaper, which means you might want to use cheap LV1 Heal wands or something for the kind of mission Shadowrun deems milk runs, but when you're getting ready to stop Dr. Abyss and her Plane-eating Hound then every point of resonance matters. Sure a LV20 heal wand sounds like overkill but it suddenly means a lot more than just restoring massive amounts of HP. Could be fun!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Secret Wizard wrote:
Quote:
What is wrong with how wands and gaffs functioned in fist ? Who ever is rioting is making things overly complex for no reason. Make it easy if you want to use a staff or wand when you prepare your spells. Spend 1 point of resonance and you can use a number of charges from that item equal to your total resonance score.

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?

For a character, obtaining powerful items should always be more important than hoarding low power items. It just works better to maintain immersion.

A high level Bard stocking up on CLW wands is as metagamey as it gets, and also the right call for many games.

Therefore, go with the intuitive thing – encourage players to use their powerful items.

The computer programming literature on user interface development points out that "intuitive" often means what the user is accustomed to rather than what is most direct. For example, Control C for copy and Control V for paste are more intuitive to a Microsoft Windows user than a pair of dedicated buttons marked Copy and Paste.

But really, I want to tell the story of my wife's 11th-level bard character Black Angus. In a D&D 3.5 campaign, we allocated the magic items in the loot based not on shares but on who could best use them. Magic items were too rare (no magic mart on the frontier of this campaign world) to sell them at half price. Black Angus took the minor items, such as boots of levitation, wand of magic missile, circlet of blasting, an instant fortress, etc. He didn't regularly use any of them, except the instant fortress as a camping shelter, since his own spells were stronger.

We were crossing a hostile orc-controlled kingdom in disguise, heading to a quest in an adjacent country. Black Angus was pretending to be Master Black, a haughty aristocrat. An orcish company camped at the far side of a narrow suspension bridge over a major river decided to shake us down for treasure. Master Black had gone ahead to talk with the tollkeepers and he got offended. Still in character as an aristocrat he avoided his bard spells and used his magic items. He levitated out of their reach and started blasting and missiling and throwing explosive things at them. The rogue who had followed secretly by Slippers of Spider Climb on the underside of the bridge threw alchemist's fire to help him. Eventually they retreated and he opened the instant fortress over the ropes of the bridge to snap them. 100 orcs died, both on the bridge and off the bridge. We snuck away and traveled several dozen miles upstream to find another crossing.

Beware of bards with minor magic items.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Its weird the duality of people in the US to simultaneously praise and curse capitalism. Kind of interesting. I wonder if there is research on that...>.>

I always liked the term "creative destruction" as a description for capitalism.


pjrogers wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Its weird the duality of people in the US to simultaneously praise and curse capitalism. Kind of interesting. I wonder if there is research on that...>.>
I always liked the term "creative destruction" as a description for capitalism.

There is also that George Orwell quote about English intellectuals being ashamed of their own nationality.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
pjrogers wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Its weird the duality of people in the US to simultaneously praise and curse capitalism. Kind of interesting. I wonder if there is research on that...>.>
I always liked the term "creative destruction" as a description for capitalism.

Can we maybe get away from this topic? I could go on a whole rant on the subject of capitalism if people wanted, but it seems a tad off topic.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Can we maybe get away from this topic? I could go on a whole rant on the subject of capitalism if people wanted, but it seems a tad off topic.

"...don't get me started on nationalistic pantheism, or we'll be here all night!"


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Can we instead talk about this cabal of goblins conspiring to overthrow the economy of Golarion by making disposable wands less of a ubiquitous option? I really kind of hope that the designers latch on, at least to the idea that less disposable "cheap" magic, might actually be better for the environment of their setting, then a magic system that floods markets with cheaper disposable goods.

Is it not possible that spent magical items have a low level toxicity, similar to depleted uranium, that might discourage their general creation and wide spread use?


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Unicore wrote:

Can we instead talk about this cabal of goblins conspiring to overthrow the economy of Golarion by making disposable wands less of a ubiquitous option? I really kind of hope that the designers latch on, at least to the idea that less disposable "cheap" magic, might actually be better for the environment of their setting, then a magic system that floods markets with cheaper disposable goods.

Is it not possible that spent magical items have a low level toxicity, similar to depleted uranium, that might discourage their general creation and wide spread use?

Can I instead bribe government and church officials to suppress this information and thus make a fortune off of these toxic and dangerous items? Yes, I have a PFS character who is a member of the Exchange.


After all, it would make sense that goblins (living in refuse areas) would be the first to discover this toxic effect of discarded wands and if bands of goblins started getting together to remove these items and get them away from water and food sources, it could also explain why people's opinions of goblins would start to change.


Unicore wrote:
Can we instead talk about this cabal of goblins conspiring to overthrow the economy of Golarion by making disposable wands less of a ubiquitous option?

Hahahahahaha...nice!


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Why is Resonance needed for wands?

Because 99% of the time, healing wands are used outside of combat where time efficiency really doesn't matter, meaning the extra cost for a better heal per go is not worth it.

This means higher level healing wands are less efficient and would never be willingly purchased by a character that understands this concept.

The only fixes for this would be to implement some other factor that affects efficiency (like Resonance), or make higher tier healing wands more cost efficient than lower tier healing wands.

I personally like Resonance, because I like the implications of it's existence.

Magic items are not batteries of magic power or magic guns with ammunition, they are objects that transfer a mystical substance that all (most?) creatures have into magical effects. More expensive magic items are more efficient at this.

Potions are just alchemical substances that, when mixed with Resonance, react to create a certain magical effect.

Scrolls are magically enchanted paper that, when exposed to Resonance, cause a magical effect to take place.

Wands are Scrolls that aren't one-time-use.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thflame wrote:
I personally like Resonance, because I like the implications of it's existence.

Ditto, it also makes it seem like adventurers in the course of their adventures just sort of soak up magical background radiation. Delve the abyss a couple of times, fight the hordes of hell, maybe punch an angel on a drunken bender and just sort of accidentally absorb magical resonance doing this sort of thing, then harness it to make your items work.

A little off topic but there are some fun mechanical things you can tie in to the whole theme. You can steal the idea of background mana from Shadowrun, and have certain locations that give those within them enhanced resonance (e.g. ley lines) or decreased (e.g. some sort of negative energy rift). Meanwhile you can bet I'm tempted to give my baddies literal resonance batteries.


Letric wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Letric wrote:


I think the issue is with pricing. If something heals 4d6 in 4 turns, and something heals 4d6 in 1 turn, they should cost the same.

But if something is better it should cost more of something, otherwise

the worse version might as well not exist.

If something is better then CLW should costs MORE, not less, because IT IS better, that's why everyone uses it.

Who honestly uses Wands in Combat? And I mean Wands for healing. You just don't. If you get a Wand of level 4, you sell it, because you can buy 10 CLW Wands, or something even better.

In PF1 I have a druid that uses a healing wand (cure mod) in combat sometimes. We got it at a discount, and it sure beats preparing a 3rd level spell for it. And yes, combat healing is inefficient usually. But it's better than watching someone bleed to death.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Elleth wrote:
thflame wrote:
I personally like Resonance, because I like the implications of it's existence.

Ditto, it also makes it seem like adventurers in the course of their adventures just sort of soak up magical background radiation. Delve the abyss a couple of times, fight the hordes of hell, maybe punch an angel on a drunken bender and just sort of accidentally absorb magical resonance doing this sort of thing, then harness it to make your items work.

A little off topic but there are some fun mechanical things you can tie in to the whole theme. You can steal the idea of background mana from Shadowrun, and have certain locations that give those within them enhanced resonance (e.g. ley lines) or decreased (e.g. some sort of negative energy rift). Meanwhile you can bet I'm tempted to give my baddies literal resonance batteries.

Ooh the Manawastes should totally leech away your Resonance. This is good because it makes such locations hurt casters AND non casters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you could buy a wand of Heal (the 6th level spell) every game group that could afford to do so - would buy it - before even upgrading equipment.

The wand of CLW isn't just the best in 'cost per charge' - it's the best because the other healing spells suck so much.

Honestly how many people even cast the other healing spells? Cure light, Cure Mod - get used - the other spells - well it's channel or wand - no one is going to blow high level spells for Cure Serious. People cast Heal though - because it has a use.

Frankly the argument over cost misses the entire boat that the cure spells suck in general - which is why everyone just goes for the cheapest - because 3d8+10 can still roll a 13 - while 1d8+5 is at least a 6 - and considering the cost difference (in spell slot or otherwise) no one cares that it *could* be much higher.

I felt that needed to be said - after getting it off my chest I think there is room to change cure spells - it'd be nice to have a 'mini - heal' in the 3rd level spells that heals 75 hps or 50% (whatever is less) - that spell would get used.


Ckorik wrote:

If you could buy a wand of Heal (the 6th level spell) every game group that could afford to do so - would buy it - before even upgrading equipment.

The wand of CLW isn't just the best in 'cost per charge' - it's the best because the other healing spells suck so much.

Honestly how many people even cast the other healing spells? Cure light, Cure Mod - get used - the other spells - well it's channel or wand - no one is going to blow high level spells for Cure Serious. People cast Heal though - because it has a use.

Frankly the argument over cost misses the entire boat that the cure spells suck in general - which is why everyone just goes for the cheapest - because 3d8+10 can still roll a 13 - while 1d8+5 is at least a 6 - and considering the cost difference (in spell slot or otherwise) no one cares that it *could* be much higher.

I felt that needed to be said - after getting it off my chest I think there is room to change cure spells - it'd be nice to have a 'mini - heal' in the 3rd level spells that heals 75 hps or 50% (whatever is less) - that spell would get used.

I think the problem is HP. Instead if Healing Spells would just like "up to X% of your HP Pool" it would be much better.

Light up to 25%
Moderate up to 50, etc.

Then you can have to some sort of Ritual to heal out of combat, or just use normal consumables.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The problem REALLY seems to be the wealth by level and the item cost scaling (and the assumption that players have total access to anything they can afford). Resonance doesn't touch this at all. It adds a clunky, arbitrary system to side step a problem rather than fix it, like a Band-Aid on a severed artery.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Resonance does fix the problem of having to wear items for 24 hours before being able to use their powers. Adventurers will definitely smell better once those "must wear for 24 hours" rules go away. ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
David knott 242 wrote:
Resonance does fix the problem of having to wear items for 24 hours before being able to use their powers. Adventurers will definitely smell better once those "must wear for 24 hours" rules go away. ;)

I feel like this benefit is under appreciated. Being able to switch out an item when it becomes necessary will be very popular IMO. This coupled with the "no item slots just body parts" change will really change the feel of magic items as a whole, making them less structured and more magical.


TwoWolves wrote:


The problem REALLY seems to be the wealth by level and the item cost scaling (and the assumption that players have total access to anything they can afford). Resonance doesn't touch this at all. It adds a clunky, arbitrary system to side step a problem rather than fix it, like a Band-Aid on a severed artery.

I don't see how resonance could possibly not touch item cost scaling. It changes how magic items work. Which means there is another variable that should impact the cost of items. For example, an item that cast scorching ray for 2 resonance is worth less money than an item that does the same for 1 resonance. This touches item costs, which means it touches any multipliers to item cost as well. Which means it does touch item cost scaling, which in turn affects wealth by level (even if the end result is the same, the numbers will need adjustment). Whether it helps or hurts is hard to evaluate unless we have the full rules, but it certainly should have some impact.


I wonder if people would have the same problem with CLW wands if they weren't wands. Like if out of combat healing was similar to 4e and 5e where characters could just spend a renewable resource to heal some hit points. or if it was some sort of 750 gp field doctors kit that could treat 50 minor injuries before running out of supplies


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

From the way the blog is written, I don't think there are any magic item uses that cost more than one resonance.


FascistIguana wrote:
I wonder if people would have the same problem with CLW wands if they weren't wands. Like if out of combat healing was similar to 4e and 5e where characters could just spend a renewable resource to heal some hit points. or if it was some sort of 750 gp field doctors kit that could treat 50 minor injuries before running out of supplies

Yep, this Resonance action seems like Healing Surges.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anguish wrote:
Get a raise at work... you don't throw away all your shoes and immediately replace them. You might buy something new and fancy you couldn't afford before, but you don't replace your mundanes.

this is a great analogy when I got hired I bought a fancy starched shirt with cufflinks for court, but I still buy the 2for30 Kohls special on generic button down shirts.


Ckorik wrote:

If you could buy a wand of Heal (the 6th level spell) every game group that could afford to do so - would buy it - before even upgrading equipment.

The wand of CLW isn't just the best in 'cost per charge' - it's the best because the other healing spells suck so much.

Honestly how many people even cast the other healing spells? Cure light, Cure Mod - get used - the other spells - well it's channel or wand - no one is going to blow high level spells for Cure Serious. People cast Heal though - because it has a use.

Frankly the argument over cost misses the entire boat that the cure spells suck in general - which is why everyone just goes for the cheapest - because 3d8+10 can still roll a 13 - while 1d8+5 is at least a 6 - and considering the cost difference (in spell slot or otherwise) no one cares that it *could* be much higher.

I felt that needed to be said - after getting it off my chest I think there is room to change cure spells - it'd be nice to have a 'mini - heal' in the 3rd level spells that heals 75 hps or 50% (whatever is less) - that spell would get used.

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.


If the healing spells healed a percentage of your total health, rather than a fixed amount I could probably get behind the way resonance works.

But even with the new Heal spell for PF2, it still doesn't do enough healing relative to the HP that a character has (IMO).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:


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.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ckorik wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:


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.

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.

1 to 50 of 128 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / If it is not broken don’t fix it. All Messageboards