"wand of CLW spam"


Prerelease Discussion

251 to 300 of 319 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Wultram wrote:
While he above is true, it is completely false that you can't see a mechanic is bad without playtesting it. I certainly have never allowed sacred geometry at any table I have run, precisely because I saw without testing it, that it it is broken as all hell. I would really like to see someone have a hint of reasonable argument for needing to playtest it.

Sacred Geometry is a much simpler rules interaction than an entire subsystem, and removing it is thus a much lower impact change. There are House Rules of a similar sort you can use in the playtest without radically reshaping the system (not letting people get to Legendary in Skills, for example, is fairly low impact)...but Resonance is not such a change.

Every item in PF2 is balanced around Resonance and its interactions with that resource. Getting rid of it before finding out exactly how that interaction works f%+&s the whole system completely, and any fix you come up with without even playtesting it is not gonna be sufficient to keep that from happening. It's as major a change as saying 'Let's just playtest this without magic items at all.' and that's not a valid test of anything.

And I noted in the same post that for playtest data to be in a format that can be digested, you have to stick to the norm. Naturally superior playtest would allow for this but resources are limited and as such it isn't reasonable.

Only reason I used sacred geometry as an example is that I consider it the same level of screw up as resonance. You may change it with firearms rules if you prefer for a wider subsystem that sucks.

Oh and for the record I could EASILY I might add to figure out a system that replaces resonance without f@@@ing up things, hell simple remove completely is better than having it. But until the actual game comes out, and I decide that this company still deserves my money I will not put in the effort.


FascistIguana wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:
(4) A 'learning problem' where new players don't know of their existence

This is a problem?

TO me this is a good thing. Less people that know means the less people spam.

I mean, I didn't know until I came to the forums. But I pick to still not use it.

its a bad thing. raising the barrier of entry is never good. also if you don't like clw wands just don't use them, as you already do. don't force the rest of us to adopt a clunky system to solve a non problem

I still don't see what this does.

No seriously, how is not telling new players "Did you know you can BREAK the differculty of the game if you just buy CLW wand every time you get up to 750 Gold? Yeah just make sure you buy one early. Then put your gold into magic items but save 750 for a CLW wand while you're at it.', suddenly Raising the barrier of entry?

I also don't see how I'm trying to force someone to adopt a clunky system. I dislike Resonance, and will more than likely remove it when I go to play PF2 "Proper".

The final rules that is. I don't see a real reason in removing Resonance as a set home rule when during the playtest, the rules could very well change mid way through and leave me going "Okay do I reuse the changed rules or keep my home rules".

I don't think this is a good solution. I feel it shuffles the problem around a bit and brings up some new ones. But I'm willing to see what Paizo does and takes away from the playtest before sitting down and figuring out something that works for my tables. If I even need to do that come the finalized rules.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

If there is the ability to ask the question "What want provides the best out of combat healing" and the answer isn't automatically Level 1 Wand then yes they have succeeded. It doesn't matter that some will prefer the lower level wand for any number of reason, just like it doesn't matter that some players don't know or care that CLW wands are the actual best option now and still buy others. So long as there is more than one provable answer to the question, they've succeeded. I've no doubt dozens of players will stick to CLW and then complain that Resonance is broken, but their opinion doesn't alter logically provable facts.


Ckorik wrote:

There are many examples of games where the math worked out - but player behavior threw it out the window or some unforseen interaction made the math moot once thousands of eyeballs scoured the system.

In that case, what we should do is playtest with thousands of players :D

Liberty's Edge

Ckorik wrote:

I trust Mark - and I believe his story 100% - but it doesn't mean that is going to happen reliably or even be the norm for a party - by admission that party specifically was stress testing a single thing - we certainly don't have enough information about all the rules and how they interact to know how things will shake out in normal play.

There are many examples of games where the math worked out - but player behavior threw it out the window or some unforseen interaction made the math moot once thousands of eyeballs scoured the system.

I'm absolutely willing to believe there will be one or more completely broken and unforeseen system interactions, but given the data we've got I can confidently say that low level consumables being better than a dedicated healer is not one of those things.

It's one of very few things we can say that about given the current data, mind you, but I feel confident in that very specific statement.

Wultram wrote:
And I noted in the same post that for playtest data to be in a format that can be digested, you have to stick to the norm. Naturally superior playtest would allow for this but resources are limited and as such it isn't reasonable.

Indeed. Which was one of my main points.

Wultram wrote:
Only reason I used sacred geometry as an example is that I consider it the same level of screw up as resonance. You may change it with firearms rules if you prefer for a wider subsystem that sucks.

Sacred Geometry is pretty bad. The firearms rules are a better example because they have more interactions and fixing them is harder without breaking other system elements.

Wultram wrote:
Oh and for the record I could EASILY I might add to figure out a system that replaces resonance without f+$@ing up things, hell simple remove completely is better than having it.

The pricing of, for example, a Cloak of Elvenkind is predicated on it being able to give you Invisibility for Resonance at-will. How do you convert that to a Resonance-less system in a way consistent across items of widely varying prices? Because just removing Resonance and all such abilities breaks the system math in a deep and profound way.

House Rules to replace Resonance are certainly achievable, but not without the kind of in-depth analysis you need to do some playtesting to achieve, given the breadth of the subsystem.

Wultram wrote:
But until the actual game comes out, and I decide that this company still deserves my money I will not put in the effort.

Okay? I'm really not sure why you're posting on this subject then. I'm legitimately confused.


FascistIguana wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:


Do they wreck your game? Do they remove any danger you might place in front of players? Do they make a mockery of the Economy(A lot of stuff does but stay with me here)? Is it a problem to the point you can't run games anymore without having to bring a barrel of them? Is it a problem to the point the Devs have introduced something that will target it(Among other things) in the next edition, in hopes of NOT having it happen again?

to answer no. no. no. no. the devs are trying to solve a non issue.

Yep, it's like asking me if it fixes my problem with chupacabra being in my garden. I don't have a garden or seen any chupacabra so it's as effective a fix for chupacabra as it is for any of the issue MerlinCross asked about...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Wultram wrote:


Oh and for the record I could EASILY I might add to figure out a system that replaces resonance without f#%*ing up things, hell simple remove completely is better than having it. But until the actual game comes out, and I decide that this company still deserves my money I will not put in the effort.

Every one is a game designer, until of course they actually have to design something.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Ckorik wrote:

I trust Mark - and I believe his story 100% - but it doesn't mean that is going to happen reliably or even be the norm for a party - by admission that party specifically was stress testing a single thing - we certainly don't have enough information about all the rules and how they interact to know how things will shake out in normal play.

There are many examples of games where the math worked out - but player behavior threw it out the window or some unforseen interaction made the math moot once thousands of eyeballs scoured the system.

I'm absolutely willing to believe there will be one or more completely broken and unforeseen system interactions, but given the data we've got I can confidently say that low level consumables being better than a dedicated healer is not one of those things.

It's one of very few things we can say that about given the current data, mind you, but I feel confident in that very specific statement.

Wultram wrote:
And I noted in the same post that for playtest data to be in a format that can be digested, you have to stick to the norm. Naturally superior playtest would allow for this but resources are limited and as such it isn't reasonable.

Indeed. Which was one of my main points.

Wultram wrote:
Only reason I used sacred geometry as an example is that I consider it the same level of screw up as resonance. You may change it with firearms rules if you prefer for a wider subsystem that sucks.

Sacred Geometry is pretty bad. The firearms rules are a better example because they have more interactions and fixing them is harder without breaking other system elements.

Wultram wrote:
Oh and for the record I could EASILY I might add to figure out a system that replaces resonance without f+$@ing up things, hell simple remove completely is better than having it.
The pricing of, for example, a Cloak of Elvenkind is predicated on it being able to give you Invisibility for Resonance at-will. How do you convert that...

All this does is reinforce the "Tim, you have to play the Cleric/Druid" paradigm, or "Jim, you have to play the Paladin" paradigm, the only classes revealed to have innate healing abilities tied to their class, and plenty of PF1 players detested being shoehorned into burning spell slots or uses per day for healing because they either felt like they had to, or because their party members badgered them into doing so because they didn't (or couldn't) heal themselves.

And we still don't know if that's changed enough since all we know is that Medicine and Heal as skills exist. There was more than one reason a consumable was better for healing, and this only solves one half of that problem.

As for the cloak pricing, it granting at-will invisibility would be double that price in PF1 standards, converting to 20,000 gold in PF1 currency, the exact price of a Ring of Invisibility. While this doesn't explain the +3 Stealth benefits (which are mutually exclusive) and the Ghost Sound cantrips (which we can do without), I'd say a double-priced at-will option is fair and consistent, with the Greater Invisibility at-will being appropriately priced at half a million gold (which is easily into artifact territory).

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Malk dude I like you and your positivity about 2e but please stop saying that people that dont like resonance is the little camp.There is what 10 or 15 people in this thread?Half of them says they dont like the resonance.I have 30 friends which we play regularly for more than 4 years.None of my friends like resonance.Almost none of them come here to rant about it.Different sides exits that is true but there is no telling which one of them is bigger.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

It only reinforces those paradigms if the other options aren't viable from the assumed balance point.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Lausth wrote:
Malk dude I like you and your positivity about 2e but please stop saying that people that dont like resonance is the little camp.There is what 10 or 15 people in this thread?Half of them says they dont like the resonance.I have 30 friends which we play regularly for more than 4 years.None of my friends like resonance.Almost none of them come here to rant about it.Different sides exits that is true but there is no telling which one them is bigger.

I'm sorry I didn't realize I made a claim of minority or majority in either direction. Mind pointing it out, as if I did it was an accident and I'd like to keep an eye out for when I say things that I don't mean. I'll admit I can be sloppy in that regard, as I'm often posting in between games of something else.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:


If there is the ability to ask the question "What want provides the best out of combat healing" and the answer isn't automatically Level 1 Wand then yes they have succeeded. It doesn't matter that some will prefer the lower level wand for any number of reason, just like it doesn't matter that some players don't know or care that CLW wands are the actual best option now and still buy others. So long as there is more than one provable answer to the question, they've succeeded. I've no doubt dozens of players will stick to CLW and then complain that Resonance is broken, but their opinion doesn't alter logically provable facts.

If you ask "What provides best of out healing combat" and the answer is always X, then I feel they have just shifted the problem over to something else. Yay wands are dead, no longer need them we just need X now.

Wait.

Mind you this relies on just seeing the numbers in front of us which the majority of us don't have right now. And those numbers can be changed by the time playtest is over.

But if the solution is "Everyone get Battle Medic" or something similar, I don't feel that solves the problem some people are having.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
MerlinCross wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:


If there is the ability to ask the question "What want provides the best out of combat healing" and the answer isn't automatically Level 1 Wand then yes they have succeeded. It doesn't matter that some will prefer the lower level wand for any number of reason, just like it doesn't matter that some players don't know or care that CLW wands are the actual best option now and still buy others. So long as there is more than one provable answer to the question, they've succeeded. I've no doubt dozens of players will stick to CLW and then complain that Resonance is broken, but their opinion doesn't alter logically provable facts.

If you ask "What provides best of out healing combat" and the answer is always X, then I feel they have just shifted the problem over to something else. Yay wands are dead, no longer need them we just need X now.

Wait.

Mind you this relies on just seeing the numbers in front of us which the majority of us don't have right now. And those numbers can be changed by the time playtest is over.

But if the solution is "Everyone get Battle Medic" or something similar, I don't feel that solves the problem some people are having.

If it gets replaced with another best in all ways option then I'll happily criticize that failing. I will note that at the very least in a "I have two wands which do I use" whether one is better than another is already variable in PF2.

E.G I want to top up at the end of the day. After resting I will have healed all but 4HP. Using a 3d8 want when I have a 1d8 wand is obviously a bad choice as I'm likely to waste a bunch of the healing from a more expensive (monetarily) per charge item.

Liberty's Edge

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
All this does is reinforce the "Tim, you have to play the Cleric/Druid" paradigm, or "Jim, you have to play the Paladin" paradigm, the only classes revealed to have innate healing abilities tied to their class, and plenty of PF1 players detested being shoehorned into burning spell slots or uses per day for healing because they either felt like they had to, or because their party members badgered them into doing so because they didn't (or couldn't) heal themselves.

This is another false dichotomy. If Wands are good enough and cheap enough that they're a viable option, but healers are more optimal, then you have some of the best of both worlds.

Groups where nobody wants to play a healer will do fine using Wands (though they'll need higher than level 1 Wands), but a healer is still something useful (ie: better than the Wands) so someone who wants to play one can do so.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
And we still don't know if that's changed enough since all we know is that Medicine and Heal as skills exist. There was more than one reason a consumable was better for healing, and this only solves one half of that problem.

We know that magic and consumables have changed enough to make it true. Whether Medicine Skill Feats are equally viable is another matter, and unconfirmed right now, though evidence favors them being viable at the moment.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
As for the cloak pricing, it granting at-will invisibility would be double that price in PF1 standards, converting to 20,000 gold in PF1 currency, the exact price of a Ring of Invisibility. While this doesn't explain the +3 Stealth benefits (which are mutually exclusive) and the Ghost Sound cantrips (which we can do without), I'd say a double-priced at-will option is fair and consistent, with the Greater Invisibility at-will being appropriately priced at half a million gold (which is easily into artifact territory).

That's a ridiculous tissue of assumptions regarding how pricing will work in PF2. You can't know how the pricing works nearly well enough to make that work in a fair and balanced manner.


Malk_Content wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:


If there is the ability to ask the question "What want provides the best out of combat healing" and the answer isn't automatically Level 1 Wand then yes they have succeeded. It doesn't matter that some will prefer the lower level wand for any number of reason, just like it doesn't matter that some players don't know or care that CLW wands are the actual best option now and still buy others. So long as there is more than one provable answer to the question, they've succeeded. I've no doubt dozens of players will stick to CLW and then complain that Resonance is broken, but their opinion doesn't alter logically provable facts.

If you ask "What provides best of out healing combat" and the answer is always X, then I feel they have just shifted the problem over to something else. Yay wands are dead, no longer need them we just need X now.

Wait.

Mind you this relies on just seeing the numbers in front of us which the majority of us don't have right now. And those numbers can be changed by the time playtest is over.

But if the solution is "Everyone get Battle Medic" or something similar, I don't feel that solves the problem some people are having.

If it gets replaced with another best in all ways option then I'll happily criticize that failing. I will note that at the very least in a "I have two wands which do I use" whether one is better than another is already variable in PF2.

E.G I want to top up at the end of the day. After resting I will have healed all but 4HP. Using a 3d8 want when I have a 1d8 wand is obviously a bad choice as I'm likely to waste a bunch of the healing from a more expensive (monetarily) per charge item.

1) How don't you heal those 4 points after resting?

2) I can't think of an instance where those 4 points will absolutely matter. Depending on the level, that's not even a a hit. If you were missing maybe 6+ maybe early yeah that makes sense or VERY early when two good hits can kill you but just 4 around mid game(When the SPAM come online) I see as meh.
3) I'll admit to wanting to be full at the start of each day. But if you're not tapped out of healing spells/abilities, use thsoe before you rest as you seem to be missing those 4.
4) If you're that worried about spending the gold per cast cost, I don't know what to say.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:


This is another false dichotomy. If Wands are good enough and cheap enough that they're a viable option, but healers are more optimal, then you have some of the best of both worlds.

Groups where nobody wants to play a healer will do fine using Wands (though they'll need higher than level 1 Wands), but a healer is still something useful (ie: better than the Wands) so someone who wants to play one can do so.

I'm not sure where this line of dialog really came up - but I would point out that this is true now - in PF 1 - with the cheap CLW wand. I'm unsure how you think that will change - the issue with CLW wands isn't that it makes someone who wants to heal redundant.

I am still trying to figure out if this system was supposed to make magic items require 'interesting choices' - or if it was just supposed to make people spend more money on wands.

I do know a stated dev goal was to do away with x/day items - but we know from published examples that didn't happen. We also know (reasonably) that healing to full between fights is expected and still 'the norm' - so the system doesn't bring attrition into the mix.

Another thing we don't know (and this is very relative to the arguments that this system actually 'fixes' anything) is that the big six items are going away.... so what does a character need to spend gold on? Assuming that less item upkeep is needed - it looks like trinkets are being introduced to 'burn cash' - however for characters that hate one shot items or things like that now - are they going to have piles of gold sitting around?

If a character doesn't feel compelled to spend their wealth - then does it matter if they have 1% or 50% invested in a wand of healing? I mean do they even care?


Why are the only options, in your mind, Big Six or pile of gold? Do you need someone to tell you what to spend your gold on before you do it? Nothing's changed except for the fact that the Big Six are no longer occupying the greater part of your wealth.


Malk_Content wrote:
Wultram wrote:


Oh and for the record I could EASILY I might add to figure out a system that replaces resonance without f#%*ing up things, hell simple remove completely is better than having it. But until the actual game comes out, and I decide that this company still deserves my money I will not put in the effort.
Every one is a game designer, until of course they actually have to design something.

Hell the first answer is right there in the quote. Remove it completely. Better than the current situation. Opinions may wary, but to me this is an absolute. It is the same as alingment firearms, crane wing nerf, crossbows, shifter. If someone is diametrically opposed on any of those points with me, their opinion to me holds no value on game mechanics. It is such a fundamental difference in thinking that there can never be any sort of compromise to be had on any significant matter.

Of coarse if you really want to, I happen to be on vacation so drop me a weeks pay and a full copy of the playtest and I can put where my mouth is. But I doubt anyone is willing to do that, so you are just going to have to my word on it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
Why are the only options, in your mind, Big Six or pile of gold? Do you need someone to tell you what to spend your gold on before you do it? Nothing's changed except for the fact that the Big Six are no longer occupying the greater part of your wealth.

No - I've played where magic items can't be bought at all - spending the gold isn't hard to do - but it's inter-related to the entire argument here: That the CLW wand was only imbalanced because it cost so little and thus wasn't a 'serious investment'.

That argument hasn't been challenged at all based on the new dynamic - which is that we no longer will be 'forced' (for the sake of argument - forced as in assumed to have spent) a large portion (75% roughly) of our wealth on the big 6 items.

What then are we spending our gold on? Is there some other mechanism that assumes a large portion of your wealth will be spent on? What replaces the big six?

If you don't have a money sink then who cares how much a wand costs? Currently the difference between a level 1 wand used at level 15 - and a level 4 wand is roughly 7.7% of your character wealth (a level 1 wand is 0.3% of your WBL - a level 4 wand is 8% of your WBL at level 15). This is being called 'game breaking'. By rights - if you are going to argue it's not game breaking then please explain why we continue to talk about it, because it's certainly held up as 'the problem' that resonance will fix.

7.7% WBL - that's the difference between 'working fine' and 'game breaking' at high level. My question is, now that you have less things you are required (assumed) to have purchased - what are you doing with your wealth - does it matter if 20% of your cash is tied up in a wand?

Would the META change on it's own with the changes to the heal spell, and the lack of 'forced' (I keep quoting because I know someone will argue that no one makes you buy a cloak of resistance +5 - even if we all know the game assumes you spend the cash on it and assigns a rather large amount of your WBL to items categories other than consumables) - sorry the lack of 'forced' items - then would players have just migrated to higher level wands already?

The two things that kept CLW in play: Higher level healing spells sucked, and wand costs scaled badly - but if the higher level healing spells are good (they are) and players feel less pressure to spend the cash on 'needed items' then will anyone care?

That's *without* resonance.

That's my question I guess. With the other changes already in the game - wouldn't the game have gravitated to the better wands already? If not why?


No, I do not believe the game would have gravitated to the better wands already, simply due to another change. The one real thing holding CLW back was the fact that it would chew through buffs a lot faster. However, most buffs look to have been reduced to 1 minute duration, so they'll naturally fall off anyways. Thus, aside from thoughts of 'gaming the system', there's really no mechanical reason not to because of how efficient it is.

Similarly, I'd argue it'd likely decrease Cha on clerics (since they can save the Heal uses for in-combat) and disincentivize investment in Medicine (though condition removal/possible combat use might help fix that).


graystone wrote:
I'd hope Paizo wouldn't ignore posts out of hand.

They won't. But you won't be given the same weight as those who play with it.

graystone wrote:
Now I will play with Resonance at least a few times [like I did with burn] but I know I'm not going to enjoy it. It's all going to be measuring how awful it is, not if it's awful or not.

That's the better approach then houseruling it out at day 1.

Liberty's Edge

Ckorik wrote:
I'm not sure where this line of dialog really came up - but I would point out that this is true now - in PF 1 - with the cheap CLW wand. I'm unsure how you think that will change - the issue with CLW wands isn't that it makes someone who wants to heal redundant.

Actually, yes, that is one of the issues (though far from the only one). Wands of CLW being as cheap as they are means that only in-combat healing from the healer is relevant for the most part, well, and saving a bit of money. It deeply discourages the role.

Ckorik wrote:
I am still trying to figure out if this system was supposed to make magic items require 'interesting choices' - or if it was just supposed to make people spend more money on wands.

Both? Those aren't actually mutually exclusive. Encouraging on-level items adds to both of these to some degree.

Ckorik wrote:
I do know a stated dev goal was to do away with x/day items - but we know from published examples that didn't happen. We also know (reasonably) that healing to full between fights is expected and still 'the norm' - so the system doesn't bring attrition into the mix.

It brings attrition of healing resources. Going into a fight with full HP but almost no healing left is still attrition.

Ckorik wrote:
Another thing we don't know (and this is very relative to the arguments that this system actually 'fixes' anything) is that the big six items are going away.... so what does a character need to spend gold on? Assuming that less item upkeep is needed - it looks like trinkets are being introduced to 'burn cash' - however for characters that hate one shot items or things like that now - are they going to have piles of gold sitting around?

The 'Big 6' as such are gone, but there are still a list of expected items. There's Magic Armor, a Magic Weapon, eventually a Stat-Boost item, and Skill Boost items for any skills you're focusing on. That last one is variable, as you can skip it or go whole hog and grab a couple.

Ckorik wrote:
If a character doesn't feel compelled to spend their wealth - then does it matter if they have 1% or 50% invested in a wand of healing? I mean do they even care?

The real change is not that Wands of Healing get more expensive (though that happens and matters a bit), it's that Wands now cos Resonance which is a resources you run out of over the course of a day.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ckorik wrote:


If you don't have a money sink then who cares how much a wand costs? Currently the difference between a level 1 wand used at level 15 - and a level 4 wand is roughly 7.7% of your character wealth (a level 1 wand is 0.3% of your WBL - a level 4 wand is 8% of your WBL at level 15). This is being called 'game breaking'. By rights - if you are going to argue it's not game breaking then please explain why we continue to talk about it, because it's certainly held up as 'the problem' that resonance will fix.

In all the games I've played where the wand of CLW was used, the game hasn't broken. Therefore, it isn't "Game breaking". The game works fine with it.

I think you're misunderstanding what "Wealth By Level" actually means. Probably the "Wealth" part.

Wealthn. In the private sense, all property which has a money value.

Property which has a money value. Which does not include consumables consumed. The WBL tables are designed to say "At level 15, characters are expected to have 240,000gp in wealth". Not "At level 15, the total amount of gold that has been given out to the characters should be 240,000gp".

And with that in mind, there is no problem if at 11th level they used two wands of CLW to heal rather than a wand of CMW.

It simply provides cheaper healing. It doesn't break the game. It doesn't even break wealth by level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mekkis wrote:
Ckorik wrote:


If you don't have a money sink then who cares how much a wand costs? Currently the difference between a level 1 wand used at level 15 - and a level 4 wand is roughly 7.7% of your character wealth (a level 1 wand is 0.3% of your WBL - a level 4 wand is 8% of your WBL at level 15). This is being called 'game breaking'. By rights - if you are going to argue it's not game breaking then please explain why we continue to talk about it, because it's certainly held up as 'the problem' that resonance will fix.

In all the games I've played where the wand of CLW was used, the game hasn't broken. Therefore, it isn't "Game breaking". The game works fine with it.

I think you're misunderstanding what "Wealth By Level" actually means. Probably the "Wealth" part.

Wealthn. In the private sense, all property which has a money value.

Property which has a money value. Which does not include consumables consumed. The WBL tables are designed to say "At level 15, characters are expected to have 240,000gp in wealth". Not "At level 15, the total amount of gold that has been given out to the characters should be 240,000gp".

And with that in mind, there is no problem if at 11th level they used two wands of CLW to heal rather than a wand of CMW.

It simply provides cheaper healing. It doesn't break the game. It doesn't even break wealth by level.

Please remember that design is theoretically supposed to be based around an average of 5 encounters per day of CR = APL, with each encounter of that sort using up about 20% of a party's resources. The fact that a level 1 wand utterly obliterates that principle, making it a lot closer to 5% of their resources, suggests that yes, it does break the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
It brings attrition of healing resources. Going into a fight with full HP but almost no healing left is still attrition.

If that was a significant design goal they should just bite the bullet and go full on healing surges. A sizable vocal amount of people on these boards would completely embrace it.

Mekkis wrote:

I think you're misunderstanding what "Wealth By Level" actually means. Probably the "Wealth" part.

Wealthn. In the private sense, all property which has a money value.

Property which has a money value. Which does not include consumables consumed. The WBL tables are designed to say "At level 15, characters are expected to have 240,000gp in wealth". Not "At level 15, the total amount of gold that has been given out to the characters should be 240,000gp".

Are you saying if a GM hands out 2,000 gp at 2nd level and someone goes and buys a magic sword and another person buys 2,000 gp worth of consumables, the GM should hand the first person 3,000 gp worth of treasure and the 2nd person 5,000 gp worth of treasure by 4th level? Cause that's definitely not how it's meant to work.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

No, but it you follow the actual rules for Treasure and Building encounters in PF1, by the time a character reaches any given level, they'll have more wealth than their WBL, a percentage of which is assumed to have been given out in consumable form (and consumed). This is why stock NPCs spend crazy amounts of their budget on potions and such (any amount be crazy for a non-crafter).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:


Please remember that design is theoretically supposed to be based around an average of 5 encounters per day of CR = APL, with each encounter of that sort using up about 20% of a party's resources. The fact that a level 1 wand utterly obliterates that principle, making it a lot closer to 5% of their resources, suggests that yes, it does break the game.

This has not been the case for literally ten years. It was mentioned in the D&D3.5e Dungeon Master's Guide.

It has never been a Pathfinder guideline.

I actually brought this up with Jason Bulmahn at UK Games Expo, and he was adamant that this will also not be the case in PF2. (For the record, he didn't exactly state what the guideline would be in PF2, though).


John Lynch 106 wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
It brings attrition of healing resources. Going into a fight with full HP but almost no healing left is still attrition.

If that was a significant design goal they should just bite the bullet and go full on healing surges. A sizable vocal amount of people on these boards would completely embrace it.

Mekkis wrote:

I think you're misunderstanding what "Wealth By Level" actually means. Probably the "Wealth" part.

Wealthn. In the private sense, all property which has a money value.

Property which has a money value. Which does not include consumables consumed. The WBL tables are designed to say "At level 15, characters are expected to have 240,000gp in wealth". Not "At level 15, the total amount of gold that has been given out to the characters should be 240,000gp".

Are you saying if a GM hands out 2,000 gp at 2nd level and someone goes and buys a magic sword and another person buys 2,000 gp worth of consumables, the GM should hand the first person 3,000 gp worth of treasure and the 2nd person 5,000 gp worth of treasure by 4th level? Cause that's definitely not how it's meant to work.

No, what I'm saying is that the expected Wealth of a character is given by the Wealth-by-level guidelines. They're not "Total aggregate income" guidelines.

How you as a GM handle it is your business, but having a large wealth disparity between characters isn't good for the health of your game.


Mekkis wrote:
No, what I'm saying is that the expected Wealth of a character is given by the Wealth-by-level guidelines. They're not "Total aggregate income" guidelines.

This has imparted zero additional information to me from what you initially posted and what I based my query on.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
MerlinCross wrote:


1) How don't you heal those 4 points after resting?

2) I can't think of an instance where those 4 points will absolutely matter. Depending on the level, that's not even a a hit. If you were missing maybe 6+ maybe early yeah that makes sense or VERY early when two good hits can kill you but just 4 around mid game(When the SPAM come online) I see as meh.
3) I'll admit to wanting to be full at the start of each day. But if you're not tapped out of healing spells/abilities, use thsoe before you rest as you seem to be missing those 4.
4) If you're that worried about spending the gold per cast cost, I don't know what to say.

1) If I'm level 6 with 2 Con I'll rest for 12HP. If I've got 16 missing that leaves me with 4HP I know I won't have after the rest and thus if I can spend resources to do so, I might as well.

2) I can think of a bunch of instance that 4HP can matter. Namely any time where if I had 1-4 more HP I don't go down. Yeah it might not be a whole hit, that doesn't matter, it only needs to be part of one. I.E If I'm at 8 Health and take a 10HP hit, that 4HP extra would have mattered.

3) I'm not going to assume any particular class make up and thus can't assume any particular set of abilities. Even if we did have access to them, there is no guarantee we haven't used them already. Afterall we are stopping for a reason.

4) I'm not overly worrried about it. But that isn't the point so you should stop bringing it up like it is. The point is that there is a least one logically provable situation where the non high level wand is your better choice, because I was responding to your post about how it would be bad to replace one best choice with another (a point I agree on but don't think is necessarily a worry with what we know.)


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Wultram wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Wultram wrote:


Oh and for the record I could EASILY I might add to figure out a system that replaces resonance without f#%*ing up things, hell simple remove completely is better than having it. But until the actual game comes out, and I decide that this company still deserves my money I will not put in the effort.
Every one is a game designer, until of course they actually have to design something.

Hell the first answer is right there in the quote. Remove it completely. Better than the current situation. Opinions may wary, but to me this is an absolute. It is the same as alingment firearms, crane wing nerf, crossbows, shifter. If someone is diametrically opposed on any of those points with me, their opinion to me holds no value on game mechanics. It is such a fundamental difference in thinking that there can never be any sort of compromise to be had on any significant matter.

Of coarse if you really want to, I happen to be on vacation so drop me a weeks pay and a full copy of the playtest and I can put where my mouth is. But I doubt anyone is willing to do that, so you are just going to have to my word on it.

Alright, so now you have to rebalance all of the items that use Resonance (all of them) so you've not actually fixed the system. You've jut torn it down and left nothing in its place. Thats like a Revolutionary who has no idea what to put in its place once they've torn the government down.

And yeah I'll front you the cost of the playtest book. In fact I've already done it! Because the book is free. But no I'm not going to pay you to fix problems you have with something that I don't have.


Malk_Content wrote:
And yeah I'll front you the cost of the playtest book. In fact I've already done it! Because the book is free.

Please get me one, too, the Playtest Book will not be free in this country!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Chest Rockwell wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
And yeah I'll front you the cost of the playtest book. In fact I've already done it! Because the book is free.
Please get me one, too, the Playtest Book will not be free in this country!

Really, you have restriction on PDF downloads from Paizo?


Malk_Content wrote:
Chest Rockwell wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
And yeah I'll front you the cost of the playtest book. In fact I've already done it! Because the book is free.
Please get me one, too, the Playtest Book will not be free in this country!
Really, you have restriction on PDF downloads from Paizo?

No, I was talking about books.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
This also assumes Wands can be used to cast a spell in any way you want; spells with variant cast times probably aren't something Paizo considered in their initial design, which means they either need to nerf Wands hard by locking in an action type (or limit the number of actions you can do with a Wand; maybe it can only be used for 1 action activations?), or completely revise how they work to disallow this broken BS.

Minor note on a point from a while ago, but in the Glass Cannon podcast, the party use a Wand of Heal for area healing, and Jason Bulmahn (who is the lead designer) acts like this is entirely normal and reasonable. So...this seems to be very much expected.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
Wultram wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Wultram wrote:


Oh and for the record I could EASILY I might add to figure out a system that replaces resonance without f#%*ing up things, hell simple remove completely is better than having it. But until the actual game comes out, and I decide that this company still deserves my money I will not put in the effort.
Every one is a game designer, until of course they actually have to design something.

Hell the first answer is right there in the quote. Remove it completely. Better than the current situation. Opinions may wary, but to me this is an absolute. It is the same as alingment firearms, crane wing nerf, crossbows, shifter. If someone is diametrically opposed on any of those points with me, their opinion to me holds no value on game mechanics. It is such a fundamental difference in thinking that there can never be any sort of compromise to be had on any significant matter.

Of coarse if you really want to, I happen to be on vacation so drop me a weeks pay and a full copy of the playtest and I can put where my mouth is. But I doubt anyone is willing to do that, so you are just going to have to my word on it.

Alright, so now you have to rebalance all of the items that use Resonance (all of them) so you've not actually fixed the system. You've jut torn it down and left nothing in its place. Thats like a Revolutionary who has no idea what to put in its place once they've torn the government down.

And yeah I'll front you the cost of the playtest book. In fact I've already done it! Because the book is free. But no I'm not going to pay you to fix problems you have with something that I don't have.

Alight it seems I wasn't clear there. First I am fully aware just simply removing resonance would have massive ripple effects. I am saying those ripple effects would be the lesser evil than the mess that the system is in the first place.

And yes I am aware that the playtest PDF will be free. But I am not on vacation when that comes up. And I have little reason to make the effort of fixing the system untill I see that playtest and more so the final product before I decide to use the system. Point of the comment was that in the current situation it is impossible for me to fix said system even if I wanted to, well fix it to the level that I would find acceptable. It wasn't me that decided to call BS on someone elses statement.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Wultram wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Wultram wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Wultram wrote:


Oh and for the record I could EASILY I might add to figure out a system that replaces resonance without f#%*ing up things, hell simple remove completely is better than having it. But until the actual game comes out, and I decide that this company still deserves my money I will not put in the effort.
Every one is a game designer, until of course they actually have to design something.

Hell the first answer is right there in the quote. Remove it completely. Better than the current situation. Opinions may wary, but to me this is an absolute. It is the same as alingment firearms, crane wing nerf, crossbows, shifter. If someone is diametrically opposed on any of those points with me, their opinion to me holds no value on game mechanics. It is such a fundamental difference in thinking that there can never be any sort of compromise to be had on any significant matter.

Of coarse if you really want to, I happen to be on vacation so drop me a weeks pay and a full copy of the playtest and I can put where my mouth is. But I doubt anyone is willing to do that, so you are just going to have to my word on it.

Alright, so now you have to rebalance all of the items that use Resonance (all of them) so you've not actually fixed the system. You've jut torn it down and left nothing in its place. Thats like a Revolutionary who has no idea what to put in its place once they've torn the government down.

And yeah I'll front you the cost of the playtest book. In fact I've already done it! Because the book is free. But no I'm not going to pay you to fix problems you have with something that I don't have.

Alight it seems I wasn't clear there. First I am fully aware just simply removing resonance would have massive ripple effects. I am saying those ripple effects would be the lesser evil than the mess that the system is in the first place.

And yes I am aware that the playtest PDF will...

Well you still haven't shown it would be easy to actually fix. I don't believe giving someone with a Cloak of Elvenkind infinite invisibility is less of a mess than Resonance. In fact that seems like it would break the game beyond repair. So yeah I called BS, because it obviously isn't easy.


Game design is actually pretty simple. All a game needs is an objective, and one or more rules defining how that objective can (or cannot) be met.

For example, one could argue that the player's objective in 1st edition D&D was simply to acquire as much wealth as possible before the system forced your character to retire, or the GM managed to kill you. In gygaxian D&D, the GM's objective really was to kill you before you could retire, but they were expected to try to kill you 'legally', none of this "I can just throw an APL+20 encounter at them, or fudge the DC of Finger of Death."

The important "rules" being that you gain experience and wealth by completing appropriate tasks (thieves literally got XP for looting, wizards for learning spells, etc), and lose it (or have to start over) if you fail (one of the ways you can fail obviously being reduced to 0 HP). Everything else (including roleplaying) was 'gravy'.

Anyone can make a game they'll enjoy... the hard part is making a game others will enjoy. Making gravy everyone likes? That is downright impossible. So PF2's success is largely dependant upon how many people like the extra, novel bits. When it comes down do it, we already have access to any number of versions of this same basic game (it being very similar to both Starfinder and D&D 5E).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
All this does is reinforce the "Tim, you have to play the Cleric/Druid" paradigm, or "Jim, you have to play the Paladin" paradigm, the only classes revealed to have innate healing abilities tied to their class, and plenty of PF1 players detested being shoehorned into burning spell slots or uses per day for healing because they either felt like they had to, or because their party members badgered them into doing so because they didn't (or couldn't) heal themselves.

This is another false dichotomy. If Wands are good enough and cheap enough that they're a viable option, but healers are more optimal, then you have some of the best of both worlds.

Groups where nobody wants to play a healer will do fine using Wands (though they'll need higher than level 1 Wands), but a healer is still something useful (ie: better than the Wands) so someone who wants to play one can do so.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
And we still don't know if that's changed enough since all we know is that Medicine and Heal as skills exist. There was more than one reason a consumable was better for healing, and this only solves one half of that problem.

We know that magic and consumables have changed enough to make it true. Whether Medicine Skill Feats are equally viable is another matter, and unconfirmed right now, though evidence favors them being viable at the moment.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
As for the cloak pricing, it granting at-will invisibility would be double that price in PF1 standards, converting to 20,000 gold in PF1 currency, the exact price of a Ring of Invisibility. While this doesn't explain the +3 Stealth benefits (which are mutually exclusive) and the Ghost Sound cantrips (which we can do without), I'd say a double-priced at-will option is fair and consistent, with the Greater Invisibility at-will being appropriately priced at half a million gold (which is easily into artifact territory).
That's a ridiculous tissue of assumptions regarding how...

Not really, because then it creates a big disparity between parties that do and do not have clerics or paladins or other class-ability healers, which is why the "Tim/Jim" paradigm exists to begin with; because a party using wands to heal up is significantly weaker than a party who can just use a Cleric or Paladin's innate features to heal, thereby sparing them WBL to use on other things they rather want, instead of something that they feel like they need to have, but don't want. You can call it a feature if you want, but that doesn't make it a good or even optional feature. (After all, it's not like Clerics can take a feat for Channel Energy options.)

You're missing the biggest point of this paradigm, which is forced shoehorning due to an apparent necessity, when it should be possible for someone to simply play a character they want, instead of something they feel like they have to because the game (or even the other players) feel like it's necessary (even if they don't want to). I shouldn't have to play a Cleric with healing spells just because I'm better at it, or I'm the only one who can. The Cleric class preview states that I should be able to play a "Battle Cleric" without issue, even though something like this is precisely an issue as to why I can't.

Again, no you don't. Just as I (apparently) don't know enough about WBL rules and what the expectations there are (even though we have examples of prices in regards to certain item levels and their abilities that can at least give us an idea what both abilities and items of certain levels can be worth), you don't know enough about skills and how they function in relation to consumables and magic to know if non-spellcasting healing is applicable to being a relevant "healer" role.

And yes, it is ridiculous. So is Resonance. Fighting fire with fire can sometimes be an appropriate tactic, especially if I'd rather deal with a lesser of two evils. Even then, if people wanna spend half a million gold (or in this case, 24,000 GP, or 240,000 GP in PF1 currency, which is artifact+-level value,) on At-Will Greater Invisibility (which takes 2 actions to recast each time it's down, and is most likely easily countered at the levels in which you can afford or acquire it), then sure, it is ridiculous. The irony here is that this is effectively what PF1 did in regards to Magic Item Creation rules, and "ridiculous" appears to be a fairly apt way to describe those very same rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
This also assumes Wands can be used to cast a spell in any way you want; spells with variant cast times probably aren't something Paizo considered in their initial design, which means they either need to nerf Wands hard by locking in an action type (or limit the number of actions you can do with a Wand; maybe it can only be used for 1 action activations?), or completely revise how they work to disallow this broken BS.
Minor note on a point from a while ago, but in the Glass Cannon podcast, the party use a Wand of Heal for area healing, and Jason Bulmahn (who is the lead designer) acts like this is entirely normal and reasonable. So...this seems to be very much expected.

What they permit in a podcast and what they will publish (or change) in the final product are completely different things. It could be like other rules, or it could be like the whole "Magic Dagger puff-puff-pass" debacle that will most likely not be permissible in the existing rules, even if solely due to balance reasons.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why is a WCL considered a bad thing and spamming. That's the purpose of it. I don't see problem with it.

There's loop holes in spell combos. Like take a witch with Hex Vulnerability and the healing Hex.

Liberty's Edge

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Not really, because then it creates a big disparity between parties that do and do not have clerics or paladins or other class-ability healers, which is why the "Tim/Jim" paradigm exists to begin with; because a party using wands to heal up is significantly weaker than a party who can just use a Cleric or Paladin's innate features to heal, thereby sparing them WBL to use on other things they rather want, instead of something that they feel like they need to have, but don't want. You can call it a feature if you want, but that doesn't make it a good or even optional feature. (After all, it's not like Clerics can take a feat for Channel Energy options.)

It's certainly a feature that people who actually invest resources into being good at a thing are better at it (in this case, better meaning 'more cost effective') than those who don't.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
You're missing the biggest point of this paradigm, which is forced shoehorning due to an apparent necessity, when it should be possible for someone to simply play a character they want, instead of something they feel like they have to because the game (or even the other players) feel like it's necessary (even if they don't want to). I shouldn't have to play a Cleric with healing spells just because I'm better at it, or I'm the only one who can. The Cleric class preview states that I should be able to play a "Battle Cleric" without issue, even though something like this is precisely an issue as to why I can't.

Actually, given how Channel Energy works, you're a very solid healer just by being a Cleric who picks positive channeling, no resource investment away from being a battle Cleric needed. That's one of the whole points of Channel Energy being a separate pool.

As for being forced to play a healer, that was actually my whole point with Wands being a sufficient (if not ideal) option. You don't actually need a healer, they're just a nice perk. People may try to pressure you into playing one, but no more than they pressure you into playing an 'archer' or 'front line fighter' or several other useful but not strictly necessary roles.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Again, no you don't. Just as I (apparently) don't know enough about WBL rules and what the expectations there are (even though we have examples of prices in regards to certain item levels and their abilities that can at least give us an idea what both abilities and items of certain levels can be worth), you don't know enough about skills and how they function in relation to consumables and magic to know if non-spellcasting healing is applicable to being a relevant "healer" role.

I specifically said I didn't know that, so I'm not sure why you're acting like I said I did. So...yeah. All my statements about what we know are about spell-based healing being superior to consumables. Which it is.

I suspect that Medicine Skill Feats will be a useful option in this regard and think the evidence points that way, but I sure don't know anything in this regard and never said I did.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
And yes, it is ridiculous. So is Resonance. Fighting fire with fire can sometimes be an appropriate tactic, especially if I'd rather deal with a lesser of two evils. Even then, if people wanna spend half a million gold (or in this case, 24,000 GP, or 240,000 GP in PF1 currency, which is artifact+-level value,) on At-Will Greater Invisibility (which takes 2 actions to recast each time it's down, and is most likely easily countered at the levels in which you can afford or acquire it), then sure, it is ridiculous. The irony here is that this is effectively what PF1 did in regards to Magic Item Creation rules, and "ridiculous" appears to be a fairly apt way to describe those very same rules.

Making the rules broken is not a way to fix the rules. It is the opposite of that. And Resonance has been playtested in-house a fair bit, so we know it has baseline functionality (ie: you can play the game this way and it functions). Does it function well and create a good game (in particular, a better game than several other alternatives)? No clue. I have deep doubts myself, but it sure functions better than basically throwing out random numbers and hoping they work.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
What they permit in a podcast and what they will publish (or change) in the final product are completely different things. It could be like other rules, or it could be like the whole "Magic Dagger puff-puff-pass" debacle that will most likely not be permissible in the existing rules, even if solely due to balance reasons.

They've confirmed multiple times that magic weapons still require no Resonance (which means the dagger thing works in theory), and the PaizoCon section of the Glass Cannon stuff occurred with the final rules that will show up in the Playtest, since it had already gone to print.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
malk_content wrote:

Well you still haven't shown it would be easy to actually fix. I don't believe giving someone with a Cloak of Elvenkind infinite invisibility is less of a mess than Resonance. In fact that seems like it would break the game beyond repair. So yeah I called BS, because it obviously isn't easy.

Something being tedious is not the opposite of easy. I do not consider myself particularly good at messing with rules, outside of just having lot of experience. But I still fully believe that I could do better than the mess that resonance is. Would likely take me rather long because like alignment(in pf1) the stupidity is ingrained into the system. But from what we have seen so far I do not see any single issue/item that would take me more than an hour to fix, more like 10 minutes to come up with something better.

Now regarding the actual wands. If we are forced to use level aproriate wands even outside of combat. Well in PF1 wands cost 15 times more than same level potion and converted into pf1 money 15th level potion is 12k so the wand will be 180k, or 75% of WBL of a single character. Assuming 4 man party that is bit below 19%. Of coarse that is lot of assumptions to make but if that is true, yeah mandotory healer role is back.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
Mekkis wrote:
Ckorik wrote:


If you don't have a money sink then who cares how much a wand costs? Currently the difference between a level 1 wand used at level 15 - and a level 4 wand is roughly 7.7% of your character wealth (a level 1 wand is 0.3% of your WBL - a level 4 wand is 8% of your WBL at level 15). This is being called 'game breaking'. By rights - if you are going to argue it's not game breaking then please explain why we continue to talk about it, because it's certainly held up as 'the problem' that resonance will fix.

In all the games I've played where the wand of CLW was used, the game hasn't broken. Therefore, it isn't "Game breaking". The game works fine with it.

I think you're misunderstanding what "Wealth By Level" actually means. Probably the "Wealth" part.

Wealthn. In the private sense, all property which has a money value.

Property which has a money value. Which does not include consumables consumed. The WBL tables are designed to say "At level 15, characters are expected to have 240,000gp in wealth". Not "At level 15, the total amount of gold that has been given out to the characters should be 240,000gp".

And with that in mind, there is no problem if at 11th level they used two wands of CLW to heal rather than a wand of CMW.

It simply provides cheaper healing. It doesn't break the game. It doesn't even break wealth by level.

Please remember that design is theoretically supposed to be based around an average of 5 encounters per day of CR = APL, with each encounter of that sort using up about 20% of a party's resources. The fact that a level 1 wand utterly obliterates that principle, making it a lot closer to 5% of their resources, suggests that yes, it does break the game.

I disagree. The wand is a party resource. If they use it to heal after the first encounter that is using resources of party. Part of that 20%. The party spent gp on the wand or found it as part of the treasure. It counts as 15% of their WBL as consumable items which includes wands. That's no broken.

Now it can be broken by hand out too much wealth or having the party tripping over wands of CLW as the move through the dungeon crawl. But not broken that's just a GM causing the problem that GM has to deal with and maybe it's something GM wants anyways.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
voska66 wrote:
I disagree. The wand is a party resource. If they use it to heal after the first encounter that is using resources of party. Part of that 20%. The party spent gp on the wand or found it as part of the treasure.

This is absolutely true. The issue is that it's too low a percentage to matter after the very low levels.

By 10th level, the 675 HP contained in 3 Wands of CLW remains more than enough to get you through the whole level in the vast majority of cases.

The expected wealth gain between 10th and 11th level for a party is 80,000 GP not counting consumables (since you're expected to go from having 62k in gear at 10th to 82k at 11th). That's less than 3% of your wealth spent healing, and that percentage will only go down as levels rise.

That's a disproportionately low investment for the benefit received. By a whole lot.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Soo cleric's are money saviors now?Never thought them as such.Well I guess that is better than being a wand of clw.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Rek Rollington wrote:
If healing is more restricted in PF2 then it can be expected at the end of the day the fighter may be low on HP and the casters are low on spells and a medium level fight could be a good challenge. If we as a playing group can get behind the idea that you don’t need to be at full HP at the start of every combat and the game is balanced around that ideal then we could have more varied encounters and likely a more interesting game.

No, we could not, because this paradigm means that no monsters can be allowed to reduce a fighter to low HP with a single strike. How people can't see that flaw in their argument is really beyond me.


Except that RP isn't a party resource. I can't find a stockpile of resonance as loot (as far as we know) and distribute it amongst the group. RP is a personal resource that generally only determines what I can and can't do individually. So if the wand is a "party resource"... then why am I spending a personal resource to use it?

GP on the other hand actually is a party resource, in that we find chunks of it and split it amongst the individuals (usually after deducting party-costs such as transportation, rehabilitation, etc). I can split the GP cost of a wand charge with my allies after the fight. Meanwhile the Fighter cannot directly "pay me back" for the personal resources I expended on their behalf (as far as we know). The best they can do is wand me back, but what if I had wanted to do something else with my RP besides healing their asses (yet again).

Transfer Resonance would be such a fun and broken spell/ritual (also the basis for many BBEG Plots).

Liberty's Edge

Lausth wrote:
Soo cleric's are money saviors now?Never thought them as such.Well I guess that is better than being a wand of clw.

Well, and Resonance savers. But yes, that's their role in non-combat healing, and will be as long as consumables exist.

Cantriped wrote:
Except that RP isn't a party resource. I can't find a stockpile of resonance as loot (as far as we know) and distribute it amongst the group. RP is a personal resource that generally only determines what I can and can't do individually. So if the wand is a "party resource"... then why am I spending a personal resource to use it?

If multiple people can use it, it's a shared cost. But yes, the people who can't use a Wand of Heal should definitely be doing nice things for those who can to pay them back since they're burning personal resources on healing.

And you're doing it for the same reason someone uses their spell slots to heal others: because somebody has to if healing is to have meaningful cost.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:

Actually, yes, that is one of the issues (though far from the only one). Wands of CLW being as cheap as they are means that only in-combat healing from the healer is relevant for the most part, well, and saving a bit of money. It deeply discourages the role.

No - it's not an issue - my personal game experience says otherwise - it may be an issue for you but it's not universal and certainly not something that the wand forces - if you are having that problem then that's a 'your table' issue. I'm willing to accept some (and make some) very sweeping statements but this one I've seen in 5 different campaigns over the past decade, that is 5 campaigns with real healers and in every single one of those people ignored the wands unless the healer was spent - every one. The only campaigns where the wands took front and center was where *no one* had healing and we had to work on having more than one 'use magic device' trick just to heal.

Quote:


It brings attrition of healing resources. Going into a fight with full HP but almost no healing left is still attrition.

I've yet to see how this makes the game better or more interesting - please explain because 30 years of playing the game, would have my real world experience tell you that any time 'healing resources' is the reason people had to stop - no one was happy about it.

That's personal experience mind - could just be a 'my table' problem - but all the other resource issues 'low on spells/rage/abilities/songs' made the players decide if they wanted to continue - sometimes going into situations underpowered. Those are/were interesting choices. Never once was healing an interesting choice - if they were out of healing they stopped - didn't matter if the universe would collapse.

Quote:

The 'Big 6' as such are gone, but there are still a list of expected items. There's Magic Armor, a Magic Weapon, eventually a Stat-Boost item, and Skill Boost items for any skills you're focusing on. That last one is variable, as you can skip it or go whole hog and grab a...

None of that is supposed to be required. Healing wands costing more isn't the issue - it doesn't matter if they took up 50% of the wealth - if players don't feel a 'need' to spend all the gold on other stuff - then it just becomes the new CLW wand with an expected budget - and if the wand is always good enough that as long as they spend enough they don't ever run out of resonance - then your 'healing resources' line goes out the window - and the problem is never one of 'resource management' but just budget management - and players will budget whatever they need to stay alive - before spending anything on fancy doodadds - every time.

251 to 300 of 319 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / "wand of CLW spam" All Messageboards