| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with you and I admire your Optimism.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You want the impossible!
at the moment we don't have the full picture, which tends to cause this. Now after the playtest documents are released, then absolutely, we should really only judge stuff on the whole.
You want the impossible!It is hard for sure, especially when we don't have the actual book to examine the whole of! But I hope before folks get angry about anything take a moment to think "how does this relate to everything else we have seen so far."
To be fair, I don't think it's actually impossible, but people's tendency sure is to focus on one specific thing they don't (or do) like in a vacuum.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do get the feeling a large contingent of PFS players have a very formalised and longstanding set of PF1 guidelines and strictures necessitated by the playing format that they use as a lens through which to understand PF2.
Personally I'm fine with most of the changes, Archetypes and Resonance have me disappointed in how they have been represented (or what I think they represent) and I'm unsure how they will affect "the whole" system.
I'm keen to playtest and report my findings. With identified bias so the devs know how to discount or accept my finding s and act accordingly.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair, I don't think it's actually impossible, but people's tendency sure is to focus on one specific thing they don't (or do) like in a vacuum.You want the impossible!It is hard for sure, especially when we don't have the actual book to examine the whole of! But I hope before folks get angry about anything take a moment to think "how does this relate to everything else we have seen so far."
In an attempt to be even more fair, I think this is in large part a result of Paizo releasing the information in a piecemeal manner.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd rather examine the holes.
They're very entertaining.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Part of the problem is that it is human nature to be pessimistic in the absence of information. That means people tend to focus on the negative rather than the positive, especially if it looks like it might threaten a sacred cow. Personally, I prefer to try and look at the opportunities rather than the negatives. I mean, gnomes get familiars! And they can talk! Can you imagine the conversations I could have with myself now? Especially if the familiar is a different personality to my gnome?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, one of the reasons I'm hesitant to dive in on "x is bad" is that I know I won't get the whole picture until at least August (which doesn't seem so far away now.) So while I might have concerns like "it doesn't seem like you get enough ancestry feats" I still don't really know for sure how many you *do* get.
I mean, one of the reasons I'm hesitant to dive in on "x is bad" is that I know I won't get the whole picture until at least August (which doesn't seem so far away now.) So while I might have concerns like "it doesn't seem like you get enough ancestry feats" I still don't really know for sure how many you *do* get.
Ancestry feats are at first and every four levels.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Re: resonance. I am not going to look at it on its own merits, or as a global part of pf2, when I'm being told it's a fix to a problem in pf1. that automatically brings in the comparison.
I kind of hope non gnomes can get magic animals without being a wizard, but now the design space is crowded so it probably won't happen anytime soon.
Just want to Bob Ross it up with a squirrel friend in my pocket.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That part of it is to solve an issue that existed in PF1. Not all of it. If the mechanic also allows/deals with three other things its unfair to solely look at it in comparison to how things worked in PF1. Resonance in particular I think you have to look at item cost/versus power/resonance availability (you might actually be able to have MORE magic items now than in PF1 you just won't be using each one every day), the improvements to what you can do without magic items, the benefits of having every stat be mechanically meaningful (move along Alchemist you are ruining my point!) new item creation rules, the possibility of non-magical consumables (elixers maybe, we still aren't 100% on that) increased player choice in how much to use any item and possibly more I haven't thought of.Re: resonance. I am not going to look at it on its own merits, or as a global part of pf2, when I'm being told it's a fix to a problem in pf1. that automatically brings in the comparison.
So let me get this straight;
-Another variable to be measured and mathed out, with clear winners and losers that the community will jump on.
- Somehow more items, but with less cash
- Improving Non Magical Abilities somehow doesn't make them better unless we bring Magic items down too
- Every stat being meaningful but still dump-able if the math shows you can(I guess STR, CON or INT)
- New Creation rules that simply could be written up anyway
- The possibility of non magical consumables that could be made anyway
- Increased player choice but limited to 'pick the best'.
Yeah I don't see why Resonance needed to be a thing. Even when looking at the bigger picture. I don't see Resonance as being this silver bullet that will suddenly fix everything. Especially when some of those things were brought on by the community itself. Are they THAT bad that Paizo needed to put another roadblock in? One that will only delay them till the new math is done(Which to be fair, PF2 was going to delay them anyway as ALL kinds of new math needed to be done anyway).
PF1 wasn't a perfect system, you can see this by the problems and the patches. I can't help but feel some of the issues the community complains about however, were brought on by those same complainers just milking that thing until it became this large of a problem.
I can make guesses about how PF2 will be. Resonance, Archetype, Alchemy changes, etc etc. I am however, willing to bet that some other grand problem will come up in PF2. Because once again, the community won't be able to help themselves from chaining themselves to the next BIG thing. It's why I think we'll see some new form of the Big 6. Maybe not as built into the system(To the point they made Automatic progression to try and curb that), but I fully expect the community to assume a player will pick up item X because it's that good.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, part of the issue with Resonance is that we don't see the full picture, and we won't until we actually play the game giving it a fair chance with as few preconceptions as possible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another variable makes it harder to maths out and even when it is the weight of that variable means there are more outcomes for good items. Currently we only have two variables and things get mathsed out super easy. Even if we do end up with the same, this is a net neutral on your point. The status quo won't have changed.
How's it harder? You might want/use weak item now, in PF2 you seem punished if you do. Even if you get it for free from treasure, you now have to compare it's use vs every Magic item you have on you and possibly in the party's bag.
I don't think it's a net neutral. I think it's a negative. If the point is to give us more options but we once again end up with the same picks, builds and items, what's the point? You have failed to live up to something you said you would do better.
Oh you've seen the WBL chart, fantastic do share! In the meantime while you get that I'll only go on what the devs have said. Resonance as a limiter allows them to reduce the cost of some items (wands in particular.) Ergo if nothing else changes (and it might, but that is pure speculation) on the cash front you can afford more things.
Have you? Because you seem to think you have. Wands are cheaper, cool. Okay. The amount of money we're getting is less now due to it being in silver as opposed to straight up gold. If your cheaper wands are still in Gold prices, that will still take time to work towards if all the pay out is in silver. Or breaks the game if you stumble across gold.
Well the items themselves look quite strong. It is a duo point really. More restricted magic items lets non magic shine more. More restricted magic items also makes it non-trivial to just surpass a player who has invested a permanent resource (feats) by just buying a wand that supplants that investment for barely anything. Because of these restrictions, magic items can actually be stronger! If you can't use something practically infinite times, the scope of effects you can put on those items increases!
This doesn't make sense. By restricting them you make them stronger? Okay. Fine. Your feat lets you do X a day. My Wand does X+5 only a few times a day. How many times do you think we'll need to do X a day? Congrats, that's a dead feat and someone wasted their feat choice. Especially if in your case, the wands are easier to get now.
As oppossed to one stat every character should dump because the maths shows unless your skills or class use that stat it is meaningless. Yes this is an improvement. For someone who hates maths working out the best way to play, you sure seem to be in favour of keeping the maths-optimization status quo intact.
I'm of the opinion that it doesn't matter what PF2 will change. The math-optimization will still remain. If the math shows to dump Con(And we have more HP than we did in PF1 too...) then that's what is going to happen.
CHA gets a buff, Stat X will be found to be safe to dump, you'll be complaining about how it's wrong that Stat X can be dumpped so easily, and I'll be at my home game trying to tinker with it.
Yes but making crafting cheaper and easier is a by product of the things you can make being less broken. Without Resonance crafting would likely be harder and more expensive.
Proof? You couldn't just shave some of the numbers on Magic items, buff skills, make some feats better and THEN make crafting easier?
Wait that sounds like hard work doesn't it? Better slap this band aid on and call it a day(Never mind they'll have to rework the numbers on the magic items ANYWAY no matter what they did as they port things over to PF2)
Yes they could, but would they be any different from magical consumables at that point?
Okay. What makes them not a problem compared to what we have now? If you can stock up on a cheap non magical healing item, we're back to the problem we should have fixed aren't we?
The answer is, and I'm sure you've thought of it, different effects. I'm actually a sucker for the Tinctures and Concoctions they put out. Maybe some new Weapon Blanches too would be neat to see. You don't need to compete with magic in the same area to be picked up.
See point 1.
See point 1. Harder?
Is it really any bloody heck harder to math that out? You have people that will math out what is best as their actual hobby as opposed to actually playing the game. Some of these people actually write out not only Guides but will actively charge money for said guide(I've stumbled across a few people selling PDFs for like 2-5 bucks when looking for info on classes).
You seem to actively believe that simply 1 more variable will confuse, bewilder, and completely make this system immune to people that would otherwise reduce this game to simple numbers!
I just have a betting pool on how long it'll take. What can I put you down for? 5 months is actually the current leader, though I have a few saying a year given that it's play test first and then full release later.
I mean, one of the reasons I'm hesitant to dive in on "x is bad" is that I know I won't get the whole picture until at least August (which doesn't seem so far away now.) So while I might have concerns like "it doesn't seem like you get enough ancestry feats" I still don't really know for sure how many you *do* get.I also think there is a big distinction between thinking a mechanic might need a tweak ala "My gut feeling is that we should have an extra Ancestry feat at level 1 to better round out our characters" and out right trashing the mechanic "Ancestries are bad, why would the developers do this, it seems like making modular ancestries is answering a problem that doesn't exist."
That's the difference between constructive criticism and criticism that's basically useless. Explaining the particular issue you have with something gives people an understanding of why you don't like it and maybe some ideas for what to do instead to address the issue (if they agree it's an issue). "X is bad" tells them....nothing, besides the fact that you don't like it.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The point is to try and make comparable options with different drawbacks that can mean different things to different players at different times. Lets go back to the "classic" clw versus better healing. In PF1 CLW wins every time. Clear best option. In PF2E I might want to have both, if I've got a little health missing even though it costs the same Resonance for both wands, I'd rather use that. Or when it is the end of the day and I have a lot of Resonance left. Or when we have a player invested in other healing means and just want a cheap (monetary) item to get them on their feet if they go down. The extra variable enables many more situations past pure maths.
Yes. In PF1, CLW wands are the mathematically best choice in all situations. Add a new variable like resonance, and CLW wands are only best in some situations. Another item or feat or spell is better in other situations. There won't be just one single mathematically best choice.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Merlin you seem to have a lot of weird contradictory points of view if I'm honest.
You don't like things being clearly the better option. But you defend a system that we know yeilds clearly better options and promotes magic items to be the better solution to tasks than being good at things.
The point is to try and make comparable options with different drawbacks that can mean different things to different players at different times. Lets go back to the "classic" clw versus better healing. In PF1 CLW wins every time. Clear best option. In PF2E I might want to have both, if I've got a little health missing even though it costs the same Resonance for both wands, I'd rather use that. Or when it is the end of the day and I have a lot of Resonance left. Or when we have a player invested in other healing means and just want a cheap (monetary) item to get them on their feet if they go down. The extra variable enables many more situations past pure maths.
Keep the status quo and we end up with the old best option still being best. Rather than maybe.
And all this rather goes to show the point of the thread. The context matters.
Context does matter. You seem to not be picking up on mine.
Resonance is another variable to you in order to keep things balanced.
Resonance is Paizo telling me I have played the game wrong and to jump on the math train.
No longer can I ignore what might be best, Resonance makes it clear that you should be doing what is best or I'm playing the game wrong.
CLW wands are best in PF1. Okay, fine. I'll give you that. I was never forced into using them the way the community latched onto it(Because it was best). With this new system, any item I pick up isn't something fun or different or something that might become a part of my character. Now I'm forced to look at the numbers, and to trade it out as soon as better numbers come into play. And to compare those numbers to the numbers of everything else I have on me, and in the bag.
My group found a Ring of Ram a few sessions ago. We kept it because it sounded fun and fit a character's personality. Math probably would say to sell it off. PF2 math however, would say to sell it off when compared to other items we had for him at the time. All because of another number that nudges it into bad category. Resonance.
Resonance fixes the CLW wand issue, I'll give you that. It won't fix players finding a way to heal for the least amount of investment. It won't fix items being dumped in the bottom of the bag or sold off. It won't stop the community from picking up the best, using it to ludicrous levels to the point the devs now have to expect it.
All this does, to me, is force the problems of the community math onto my table. I have a Hybridization Funnel on my character. Why on Golarion's green earth would I use that in PF1? Because it's kinda fun. Why would I in PF2 if it takes a Resonance? That's a good question, and one that will be weighed by the community for a lot of items. Save for the fact I have ask it too now because of how the system is.
Congrats, your table, the one that spammed CLW, is fixed. Kinda. Your table will find the next best thing and spam that. Was it worth it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. In PF1, CLW wands are the mathematically best choice in all situations. Add a new variable like resonance, and CLW wands are only best in some situations. Another item or feat or spell is better in other situations. There won't be just one single mathematically best choice.
I don't see how they're a choice at all now. use the best like you always have.
You guys will have it mathed out in a couple weeks.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
To offer a counterpoint, how much individuals care small portions of the game is a very important thing to keep in mind.
For example, if people who hate core goblins quit despite their love of the resonance systems and other people who hate resonance quit despite their love of goblins, then the game and playerbase suffers on both counts.
Be wary of giving a lot of different reasons for a lot of "individually insignificant" groups of people to walk away.
Paizo MUST be bold and create an awesome NEW game. I'm not saying cling to the past.
Just recognize that strong negative reactions, even if from a "vocal minority" should be viewed seriously.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You aren't forced to use whats best with Resonance any more than you were with wands in PF1. If you weren't willing to buckle to community preassure in 1 why would you in 2. That makes no sense. You either ignore it or you don't.
People on the forums aren't going to suddenly become more persuasive to you. Especially as part of my entire point is that what is the best option is MORE nebulous with Resonance and multiple things can fill that space.
Lets go to your Ring example. In PF1 you might keep that ring, until you got two other better rings. Then you can't equip it so it doesn't get used and you sell it. In PF2 you might keep it because it isn't taking a ring slot and you can opt to channel Resonance into when you deem it useful. So I think it is actually better for you. Or if it isn't just ignore what is best like you always have and go with what is fun for you.
Because of your Resonance is another variable poking me in the back of the head.
"Hey hey. Hey. Hey. Why'd you use that ring? It costs Resonance. You'd be better if you used this ring that gave a bonus all the time. Hey, hey, do the better thing. Hey do it. Hey hey hey hey, your cloak needs to be replaced. Hey hey, that fun item isn't worth it, ditch it, hey hey hey."
Like bloody Navi from Zelda if that reference means anything.
Before to me, most things were self contained. Rings to Ring, Cloaks to Cloaks etc. I barely put any thought into gold to benefit. I just thought "Hmm do I have enough cash for this NOW or should I save up?"
But now everything is tied to a core, more unbending resource that seems to be designed to keep the spam away but also make sure you are using the best items. Paizo even said it in their blog though I admit that was probably more them saying "Stop using CLW and get a CMW when you can" than anything.
Going back to the ring example, yes, I have that option of still wearing it. The issue here is I can wear it but only use it under These instances; The cost is useful now, I attuned to it that day, I have enough points to spend on it, I don't want to spend points on something else, I'm out of points, I plan on using something next turn that will take a point, I don't have ring of X+1 ready..
I'm not a fan of those instances. Others might like it but I don't feel the system rewards winging it.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The point is to try and make comparable options with different drawbacks that can mean different things to different players at different times. Lets go back to the "classic" clw versus better healing. In PF1 CLW wins every time. Clear best option. In PF2E I might want to have both, if I've got a little health missing even though it costs the same Resonance for both wands, I'd rather use that. Or when it is the end of the day and I have a lot of Resonance left. Or when we have a player invested in other healing means and just want a cheap (monetary) item to get them on their feet if they go down. The extra variable enables many more situations past pure maths.Yes. In PF1, CLW wands are the mathematically best choice in all situations. Add a new variable like resonance, and CLW wands are only best in some situations. Another item or feat or spell is better in other situations. There won't be just one single mathematically best choice.
The different situations are also influenced more heavily by your specific character. A gruff dwarven cleric with relatively low CHA is going to have different "best choices" than a charismatic gnome cleric. A blacksmithing fighter who spends his downtime crafting new gear is going to have less loose cash for pocketfuls of wands than a bard who spends their downtime getting paid to entertain.
Since Resonance creates a new axis for determining what the best use of resources are, you get significantly more variance between "optimal" loadouts and gear between characters than you have in the current system.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. In PF1, CLW wands are the mathematically best choice in all situations. Add a new variable like resonance, and CLW wands are only best in some situations. Another item or feat or spell is better in other situations. There won't be just one single mathematically best choice.I don't see how they're a choice at all now. use the best like you always have.
You guys will have it mathed out in a couple weeks.
Merlin, do you feel the same way about PF2 Power Attack? In PF1, Power Attack was a go-to, always on, everyone has it feat. The math says it's always worth it. In PF2, with revised action economy, Power Attack is not always the best option. In some situations it is better than the alternatives, in others it is less effective. This opens up new options for different kinds of effective builds that are designed to excel in different circumstances.
The same thing applies to CLW wands. The new system, Resonance, means that CLW wands (or heal or whatever) are only the best in some situations. In other circumstances, your other options are going to be more effective. Yes, math may determine what method is best for what circumstance, but you can choose what you want to prepare for or what your build prioritizes.
I'd like to see more bigger picture debating.
I agree, I think we need to be more open-minded, but we can't debate the big picture yet because we don't even have the big picture.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. In PF1, CLW wands are the mathematically best choice in all situations. Add a new variable like resonance, and CLW wands are only best in some situations. Another item or feat or spell is better in other situations. There won't be just one single mathematically best choice.I don't see how they're a choice at all now. use the best like you always have.
You guys will have it mathed out in a couple weeks.
Merlin, do you feel the same way about PF2 Power Attack? In PF1, Power Attack was a go-to, always on, everyone has it feat. The math says it's always worth it. In PF2, with revised action economy, Power Attack is not always the best option. In some situations it is better than the alternatives, in others it is less effective. This opens up new options for different kinds of effective builds that are designed to excel in different circumstances.
The same thing applies to CLW wands. The new system, Resonance, means that CLW wands (or heal or whatever) are only the best in some situations. In other circumstances, your other options are going to be more effective. Yes, math may determine what method is best for what circumstance, but you can choose what you want to prepare for or what your build prioritizes.
There's a few things here.
For one, everyone has it as a feat for not only the math but the tax. And we as a community, or at least all the non PFS tables I have played at, tend to use that one feat tax blog homebrew rules to make it less a tax. Why hasn't the community tried to fix CLW wands yet? Or Paizo?
I put out my own fixes in another topic and was basically accused of being a bad Dm that hates fun and taking away player agency or something. CLW wands seem to be a problem but why has no one in the community tried coming up with a solution that doesn't involve flinging CR+3 monsters at the party or something?
For two, Well I'll like PF2 Power Attack if so many feats aren't locked behind it. Which I think is the case or the claim. Secondly..., yes? maybe? I mean Power Attack might be good, maybe even the best. But when the math does show up and the biggest Attack for the least amount of investment/threat per round on average, is found..., well the community will latch to that and everything else is subpar. Basically I don't want to see Combat maneuvers getting tossed to the side again, especially after we got Dirty Fighting feat.
For three, this is again looking at CLW wands in a vacuum. I wouldn't be as bothered as I am if it say Worked for only wands. But now you have to compare that wand usage to your potion you could be using, your Cloak you might use, your ring you could be turning on, and all manner of other items.
Man Merlin it sounds like you play with a nasty bunch. Which doesn't gel well with your depiction of them doing the more fun based game before.
Do you play with people who nag you about your choices or do you play with people who just want to have fun?
The people I play with are actually a fun bunch. Little odd and a few times tempers have been raised. But I see odd characters, different builds and not just Wizard, Druid, Cleric, X because the math said so. Now I have had some real bad experiences at tables partially PFS where , at least where I am, Seshat seems to be a deity(goddess of accounting, architecture, astronomy, astrology, building, mathematics, and surveying. Why yes I spent too much time on that)
If you meant that by what I said the whole "Hey, hey hey" bit, that's not them. Maybe at PFS but not my groups.
That's the game.
That's what Resonance does to the game for me. A system that pokes you in the back of the head saying "You could be doing this better".
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But when the math does show up and the biggest Attack for the least amount of investment/threat per round on average, is found..., well the community will latch to that and everything else is subpar.
This belief of yours that there will be only one best thing is so very unfounded.
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another thing that's kind of cool about adding resonance as a complimentary axis to wealth is that it means that optimized character loadouts will actually grow apart instead of growing together for different characters. A dwarven rogue and a halfling rogue are going to have different priorities now; the halfling might prefer a larger number of cheaper magic items to cover a variety of specific situations, which would lower his need for Assurance feats, while the dwarf might focus on a smaller number of more powerful items that are generally useful and lean more into skill feats like Assurance that remove the risks for lower DC tasks related to those skills. So that really basic decision of what race to play and what stats to prioritize will create a cascade effect changing which choices are the most optimal for each character. The halfling who can more easily afford the resonance for a wand of spider climb isn't going to invest much in Climb, while the dwarf might choose to take Assurance (climb) as his way of avoiding failure and adding consistency. Since the dwarf had a reason to take a Climb skill feat, he might decide to ramp up Climb until he gets some crazy theoretical Legendary Climb feat that lets him climb faster than most creatures can fly and climb up monsters, while the halfling will instead be using a wand of fly to surmount barriers, just as a kind of random example. Even though the two characters are going to want to achieve the same result at some point, the optimal way of doing that will be different for each one.
This is very different than the current system where a dwarven rogue and a halfling rogue are going to be most different at first level, but will become increasingly similar to each other as they continue to pick optimal choices across their lifespan. Adding that axis can really introduce a surprising amount of variance between two characters even when they're both trying to optimize, and makes the answers to questions like "what's the most optimal build for XYZ class" a lot less straightforward. If you're looking at a character who's been consistently raising their Charisma compared to a character who didn't, the Charisma character is going to be able to leverage more (likely lower level) magic items towards their build, while the non-CHA character is going to have higher baselines in other areas (which in turn will change which feats were good choices for each character at various levels, which skills they wanted to advance, etc.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That part of it is to solve an issue that existed in PF1.Re: resonance. I am not going to look at it on its own merits, or as a global part of pf2, when I'm being told it's a fix to a problem in pf1. that automatically brings in the comparison.
I have never encountered any of the 'issues' in PF1 that Resonance is supposed to 'solve'. Not as a player, and not as a GM.
Am I just really, really lucky?
But when the math does show up and the biggest Attack for the least amount of investment/threat per round on average, is found..., well the community will latch to that and everything else is subpar.This belief of yours that there will be only one best thing is so very unfounded.
I mean, the nature of games like this is that you can always (and will always) add more things.
For example, compare the best archer one could build with the core rules in PF1, to a Haunt Collector Trappings of the Warrior Occultist with an Orc Hornbow (proficiency gained with a half-elf's ancestral arms alternate race trait).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We have come up with different solutions. None of them giving players as much choice as Resonance do.
Like making wands scarce. That isn't giving them choice, its just saying no. Or giving auto full healing. That isn't a choice. Give me a mechanic that makes the different wands a choice without one being straight up better and I'll probably accept it as an alternative.
So far Resonance seems to be giving those choices. Just because the choices come with a downside doesn't really matter, in fact it makes the choices mean more.
You don't seem to be sharing them when the topic comes up. Just sigh, spam wands and complain about spamming wands.
Resonance comes with a downside of "You picked badly". Why would you pick the option with a downside?
I didn't spam CLW. Why did you? And why won't you just do the same thing in PF2? Because there's suddenly options? If those options are still worse, what's the point of them being there for YOU to choose?
I mean look at the options we have for spells and weapons! I mean the same handful get picked again and again, but the options are there!
So it is a purely psychological thing then? Once identified why can't you go, "this is silly I should just play for fun?"
That's what Resonance does to the game for me. A system that pokes you in the back of the head saying "You could be doing this better".
Because it's not fully psychological. It's backed in system too.
Resonance is a system to ensure you are using the biggest numbers. This has the benefit for you that CLW will be supplanted by CMW when they become affordable. It has the downside of saying every other item can also get supplanted and SHOULD be if the numbers show it. That you should be using the biggest number.
I could ignore the gold. I could ignore the community. I find it a tad harder when the system itself says I should actually be using This option.
Almost like the Designers want me to play like everyone else.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stuff
This is probably the best argument I've seen for resonance, but I still see a big problem. While it differentiates what is THE best option for a certain race, class or build, resonance pretty much punishes non-optimal choices, as it uses the same pool for the strong/optimal AND for the fun things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That part of it is to solve an issue that existed in PF1.Re: resonance. I am not going to look at it on its own merits, or as a global part of pf2, when I'm being told it's a fix to a problem in pf1. that automatically brings in the comparison.
I have never encountered any of the 'issues' in PF1 that Resonance is supposed to 'solve'. Not as a player, and not as a GM.
Am I just really, really lucky?
I'm 100% in your camp. I am picky and I play with people who enjoy making great stories and working with a system that supports that.
Your position is totally valid.
However, it seems clear that we are the minority and "win button" players are where the profits are to be found.