| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
But this isn't that, though. Getting a base class feature whose (automatic) scaling makes you better at XYZ by default isn't "investing resources" whatsoever. This is like saying Paladins from PF1 are the best tanks because they invest in the Lay On Hands and Aura/Immunity features. It's not an investment, it's part of the base package. Buying items like Bracers of the Merciful Knight, taking Extra Lay on Hands (or even Aura) Feats, and stuff like that? That's investment. Getting the base feature as a part of your class? Not investment whatsoever.
Clerics getting Channel Energy through a feat would be investment. Them getting it just from level advancement is not investment, it's par for the course, for any Cleric, really. That's why it makes no sense to say that.
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.
It always was a separate pool, way back in PF1 Core. It's not like Channel Energy ate into your spells per day like you're saying it did, because that never happened, and wasn't really the issue I had here.
As for it eating into your "Battle Cleric"-ness, what if I wanted a non-melee damage alternative, choosing Negative Energy channeling (which never affects me unless I want it to, by the way) for dealing with Swarms and other melee-resistant enemies? Nope, can't do that now, because if I don't have some form of healing, in-combat or not, I'll end up dying due to having too much options available. And I sure as hell don't wanna burn my even more precious spell slots to do that.
Yes, Positive Channeling can be used to fight undead enemies, but that's pretty niche (even if they are a fairly common form of enemy, they aren't so common as to expect them to happen, similar to why they changed Favored Enemy for the Ranger preview), and I honestly wouldn't really spec into Channel Energy damage in that manner unless I knew I would be in a really heavy Undead campaign (such as Carrion Crown or other similar "Zombie Apocalypse" scenarios). Whereas if I have some investment in Negative Energy channeling, it can be a viable alternative to counteract some of my offensive weaknesses against swarms and similarly resistant enemies.
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.
What you said was:
We know that magic and consumables have changed enough to make it true.
Until we get the full rules for magic items and consumables, as well as compare those rules to how Medicine skills and such function, you can't make that claim.
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.
The point here was when they spent actions literally tossing the dagger around every party member to kill the Shadow, AKA the Peasant Railgun effect, Jason Bulmahn said that it's something he would find unintended in the rules. Whether that means there will be rules that discourage or prevent this sort of "shenanigans" or not, I don't know. But he even said something along the lines of letting them do it anyway to defeat the adventure (and because it was something that was both interesting and iconic to this specific adventure), which (from my knowledge) hasn't been brought up within the podcast itself.
|
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.
It's actually not a big issue in my games personally. Of course, my games are fairly heavily house ruled (though not mostly in the area of healing).
But it's an issue with the rules and how they operate. It is a built in incentive that does, based on a wealth of people's experiences, effect a lot of people's games profoundly.
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.
Having players actually worry and express concern when they take enough HP loss, even when it doesn't kill them, strikes me as a much more fun and tense experience than having them say "Oh, we just lost HP. Nothing that matters, let's heal up and move on."
Not having healing be meaningful means that only encounters involving other status effects (poisons, ability damage, or being turned to stone, for example) are actually tense unless the opposition is completely overwhelming (or gets really lucky). Which is a huge tension breaker and problem if aiming for actual drama or risk.
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.
Being out of healing tends to grind people to a halt, yeah. Which is one reason why budgeting it makes for a good mechanic. You have to carefully decide how and when you'll invest your healing. That's an interesting strategic choice, and the game having those is mostly a good thing.
None of that is supposed to be required.
Uh...yes it is. They've said so.
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.
You need level appropriate gear of various sorts (particularly armor and weapons) to stay alive. Also, the primary expense change to wands is not the money (though it's a factor), but the Resonance. Hence this whole discussion.
|
|
But this isn't that, though. Getting a base class feature whose (automatic) scaling makes you better at XYZ by default isn't "investing resources" whatsoever. This is like saying Paladins from PF1 are the best tanks because they invest in the Lay On Hands and Aura/Immunity features. It's not an investment, it's part of the base package. Buying items like Bracers of the Merciful Knight, taking Extra Lay on Hands (or even Aura) Feats, and stuff like that? That's investment. Getting the base feature as a part of your class? Not investment whatsoever.
Clerics getting Channel Energy through a feat would be investment. Them getting it just from level advancement is not investment, it's par for the course, for any Cleric, really. That's why it makes no sense to say that.
Picking a Class is an investment. By picking Paladin in PF1, you are in fact investing in Lay On Hands and Auras/Immunities, instead of investing in, oh, being a 9th level spellcaster. You made a choice as to what your character would be good at.
Some investments in this sense are tied together, but they remain investments.
It always was a separate pool, way back in PF1 Core. It's not like Channel Energy ate into your spells per day like you're saying it did, because that never happened, and wasn't really the issue I had here.
I...never said otherwise? I was responding to your comment that a battle Cleric should be a valid option. It is. It's a valid option with or without positive energy Channeling, but with it, at very little opportunity cost for many melee Clerics, you are also a solid healer.
As for it eating into your "Battle Cleric"-ness, what if I wanted a non-melee damage alternative, choosing Negative Energy channeling (which never affects me unless I want it to, by the way) for dealing with Swarms and other melee-resistant enemies? Nope, can't do that now, because if I don't have some form of healing, in-combat or not, I'll end up dying due to having too much options available. And I sure as hell don't wanna burn my even more precious spell slots to do that.
As mentioned, you can get by with a Wand. In that case you're not investing much in the way of character resources into healing...which is fine.
Yes, Positive Channeling can be used to fight undead enemies, but that's pretty niche (even if they are a fairly common form of enemy, they aren't so common as to expect them to happen, similar to why they changed Favored Enemy for the Ranger preview), and I honestly wouldn't really spec into Channel Energy damage in that manner unless I knew I would be in a really heavy Undead campaign (such as Carrion Crown or other similar "Zombie Apocalypse" scenarios). Whereas if I have some investment in Negative Energy channeling, it can be a viable alternative to counteract some of my offensive weaknesses against swarms and similarly resistant enemies.
Sure. Going Negative is totally viable. You are then not investing much into healing unless you invest some spells or Skill Feats.
Until we get the full rules for magic items and consumables, as well as compare those rules to how Medicine skills and such function, you can't make that claim.
We have the full rules for the Heal spell and most of the rules for Resonance. Those are sufficient to say that consumables no longer beat a dedicated spell-based healer at healing. For sure.
Which is all that's necessary for my statement to be true.
The point here was when they spent actions literally tossing the dagger around every party member to kill the Shadow, AKA the Peasant Railgun effect, Jason Bulmahn said that it's something he would find unintended in the rules. Whether that means there will be rules that discourage or prevent this sort of "shenanigans" or not, I don't know. But he even said something along the lines of letting them do it anyway to defeat the adventure (and because it was something that was both interesting and iconic to this specific adventure), which (from my knowledge) hasn't been brought up within the podcast itself.
No such statement has been made or implied about area healing with Wands, nor does that have weird setting effects, nor does assuming that they'd make such a restriction make any thematic or mechanical sense.
You assuming it anyway is seriously weird.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Um actually: The "peasant railgun" was a non-exploit, the RAW never allowed it.
The "peasant railgun" was a physics based arguement that tried to impart the qualities of a high-velocity ballistic projectile onto an object. How it 'worked' was by using a line of Followers who each Readied An Action to pass a given object (usually a rock) to the next follower in line, who then passed it to the next follower in line, all the way down the line, until the last follower's readied action to "drop" the rock occurs. Because of abstract game mechanics, when triggered, the "peasant railgun" was effectively capable of passing the object niegh-instantly a number of squares equal to the number of followers.
Stupid Munchkins argue that the rock retains that velocity, and therby does astronomical amounts of damage... the rules say that the rock falls harmlessly in the square the last follower was standing in.
Using a action to toss a dagger to your ally after you've attacked, so they can attack a monster's weakness and then toss the dagger to the next ally in initiative, so they can do the same, and so on... is most definitly a far worse exploit. Things like that are prime reasons why in many game systems performing an Attack ends (or is always at the end of) your turn.
If someone tried to pull a pass-train on me like that, I would feel compelled to rule that the second character was prohibited from catching the dagger until they had spent at least as many actions as the first character had before tossing it, otherwise they would have to wait and "pick it up off the ground" the following round. I might let a 'second' character Ready An Action to catch a tossed dagger if they go ahead of the 'first' character.
My reasoning: Despite the staggered nature of combat in practice, the combat round actually represents everyone's actions happening at the same time, and each action actually represents 2 seconds of real time. So if the first character tosses you the dagger with his third action, that is actually happening during the 5th or 6th seconds of the round. The second character 'logically' cannot spend their first or second an actions to catch it, because at that point in real-time the dagger hadn't even been thrown yet.
This exploit assumes that each character's 6-second round is functionally happening after the previous character's, and before the following characters. Which mechanically it is, but breaks immersion pretty badly.
True, but even with 150+ followers... there isn't all that much you can do with the ability to move one fairly light object (the armored dwarf will be too heavy) 1 square per follower per 2 rounds, at the cost of 150+ actions.
You could treat them like a long-fuse for a bomb... but being responsible for so many follower's deaths at once should make it impossible to find replacements. Likewise, using them as a supply-train limits your ability to explore, and eventually the environment itself becomes too hazardous to convince followers to subject themselves too.
A better for that many followers is giving them all wands of magic missile and AoE Heal; and having them all ready to attack or heal a given target I designate at once. Considering they all have their own RP pools.
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.)
1) Wait you play with the "1 HP per level" rule on resting? I mean in the middle of a dungeon okay yeah maybe, but in town as well? In a safe location? I keep seeing heal up to full(Well HP. Disease, ability damage and other lasting effects still need checks)
2) I can think as just as many reasons where those 4 won't matter. Who's to say which is better. In your case it wouldn't matter if you took 13.
3) I will. I will assume someone in the party took some level of healing. This doesn't mean "Healbot", but I will expect someone on the team to either have brew potion, cure light wounds, or some other way of healing. If only because the abilities and skills of said class are also desirable for a balanced party.
4) Are we talking PF1 or PF2? Cause if PF2, the only reason I see to NOT use a higher level wand is because you want to save that cash for something else and even then the Resonance system is going to make you go up.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Uh...yes it is. They've said so.None of that is supposed to be required.
I'm missing where they said that - if they are required then they didn't get rid of 'the big six' - they just changed them. Everything I've read from the devs indicated the system is supposed to make magic weird and exciting again instead of 'yet another +1 item' - anything 'required' makes that entire idea moot.
And I've yet to see an actual dev quote that states magic items will be required - special properties for DR yes - perhaps a weapon that is 'magic' - but nothing that like what we have currently. Having items that people *want* isn't the same as having items that are required.
Again - it wouldn't matter if the budget is 90% of a players wealth - if that's what is needed to *never worry about healing* - then players will take 10% - buy items and ignore the rest of it - because that's the behavior - the amount of resources needed *never matters* because unless it's more than a player can spend they will spend it.
No one wants to sit around or go back to town or let the villain complete the magic ritual because they ran out of healing. It's the opposite of interesting choice - it's the lubrication that allows an adventure to flow - it's so important the devs even went out of their way to ensure the resulting system allowed people to heal between fights (based on statements only - evidence not admitted) - so no - not interesting choices here - you keep saying this - but if it were an 'interesting choice' then the system would be designed to force you to choose 'ring or healing' - it's not - it forces you to spend more money.
That's it.
Spend more money.
That's the *only* result that this system does (for healing wands - I do admit it allows for more powerful items at lower levels similar to D&D 1e - but the fact that you can sell the items IMO negates this advantage - but I think it's a worthy topic on it's own thread). Spending more money isn't interesting - nor is it meaningful - it's just money - and that's why it doesn't matter what the amount is - if players need to budget for X amount then that's what they will spend - it doesn't result in anything interesting about the game except adding more things to track and more busy work keeping track of these things.
This is all based on the statements by the devs:
- players will still heal to full between encounters
- you will want a better wand (but perhaps not the best!)
- players never ran out of resonance during normal play
Take all of those together and you lose the 'meaningful choice' argument - it's just money spent - I guess it's meaningful that someone - somewhere - who loves spreadsheets and math will make a chart of which wand you want at which level to max out the value per resonance spent vs expected healing.
I don't play with a single player who will do that - I do know that once the chart is published they'll all use it - without thinking - without making a meaningful choice other than to budget whatever is needed - because no one will want to spend time thinking about it other than 'I'm hurt - we are out of combat - lets heal'.
Being out of healing tends to grind people to a halt, yeah. Which is one reason why budgeting it makes for a good mechanic. You have to carefully decide how and when you'll invest your healing. That's an interesting strategic choice, and the game having those is mostly a good thing.
That would be true if it were a resource that was nice to have but not needed. There is no strategic choice involved in a resource you are required to have.
This is why the took out the 'big six' items - there is nothing exciting or strategic about getting a cloak of resistance +5. There is nothing exciting or strategic about upgrading your +2 headband to a +4. There is nothing exciting or strategic about buying the 'wand required at level 5 to keep from running out of resonance'.
It's the exact same thing that was done with stat boosting items - just a different mechanic at play - if the item is *required* to adventure then making it cost more or eat up wealth or (insert anything more complicated than resonance) doesn't increase the excitement or make it more interesting - it just is another number on a spreadsheet to track.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
players never ran out of resonance during normal play
This still is not something that has been said. What has constantly been said is that people don't run up against the cap hard. That is entirely different than not running out at all. That's the equivalent of someone saying "people don't die of dehydration" and that being condensed to "people never ran out of water".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
-snip-
Pedantic argument of what I meant by "investment" aside, this really doesn't change anything. A base feature with no add-ons to it is not really an investment, when it's a feature that everyone of that class gets regardless of what they do or do not choose to do.
I already demonstrated it has significant opportunity cost. You can't defeat swarms reliably without Channel Negative Energy (unless they're Undead Swarms, which are possible, but very edge-case), meaning you're stuck with doing the same investments as anyone else, which are Acid Flasks, Alchemist's Fires, and so on. You also may not be able to reliably affect enemies who may have some sort of strong resistance or immunity to your melee attacks. Even if the claim is that "Well, now you need to invest in Healing Wands," the opportunity cost is a two way street. I give up the ability to deal with swarms and other non-melee combatants in order to heal up conversely, which means that one way or the other, I'm paying for it.
That "going negative" statement sounds like sarcasm. Especially since that's not possible in PF2. In addition, going unconscious into Dying is effectively a death sentence as it is, since healing no longer makes you instantaneously conscious, and making a motion to heal your friend just gives the bad guys a reason to kill them outright, since they now know that an enemy who is now down and defenseless, was just healed (giving them information that they're still alive), and needs to be eliminated before they rise back up as a major thorn in their side.
That's just me hoping they realize the mistake in permitting Area Healing wands, since you've just essentially defeated the whole point of Resonance eliminating the "Weak Wand Out of Combat Healing" argument by allowing the Wand to heal for AoE (for more net damage curing), the "puff puff pass" system (where people pass around and "share resonance" to heal out of combat), and simply still being the nuisance it was in PF1, except more added steps.
Maybe if Wands had the "locked for 24 hours" rule in place, it might curtail these shenanigans, but that's easily solved by having the person with the most Charisma (Bard, Sorcerer, Paladin) being the "healstick," which just makes the problem more selective (and specifically abusable) than anything.
This still is not something that has been said. What has constantly been said is that people don't run up against the cap hard. That is entirely different than not running out at all. That's the equivalent of someone saying "people don't die of dehydration" and that being condensed to "people never ran out of water".
players never ran out of resonance during normal play
I'm not sure that this distinction works - but I'm willing to admit the language used may be misleading... or perhaps hyper precise would be a better term - as I don't think (and never have) the Paizo devs are out to mislead us - I assume any incorrect information was correct at the time of the comment - that is double/triple so on a 'fluid' playtest - we already know the podcast had rules that have changed in the copy we'll get.
That goes both ways - for those that are dead sure resonance is a sure fire fix for some issues.
I have always been willing to eat my own hat if the system is awesome in play. I will use ketchup though - I'm not a masochist ;)
This still is not something that has been said. What has constantly been said is that people don't run up against the cap hard. That is entirely different than not running out at all. That's the equivalent of someone saying "people don't die of dehydration" and that being condensed to "people never ran out of water".
players never ran out of resonance during normal playI'm not sure that this distinction works - but I'm willing to admit the language used may be misleading... or perhaps hyper precise would be a better term - as I don't think (and never have) the Paizo devs are out to mislead us - I assume any incorrect information was correct at the time of the comment - that is double/triple so on a 'fluid' playtest - we already know the podcast had rules that have changed in the copy we'll get.
That goes both ways - for those that are dead sure resonance is a sure fire fix for some issues.
I have always been willing to eat my own hat if the system is awesome in play. I will use ketchup though - I'm not a masochist ;)
Well, the Glass Cannon Podcast is probably a decent example. They did run out of Resonance, but it only happened near the end of the day during the boss. Now granted, Jason was adjusting the module, so that may have contributed, but it's still an example of the general idea in practice.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm missing where they said that - if they are required then they didn't get rid of 'the big six' - they just changed them. Everything I've read from the devs indicated the system is supposed to make magic weird and exciting again instead of 'yet another +1 item' - anything 'required' makes that entire idea moot.
They've mentioned it a few times. The idea was not to entirely eliminate required items, but instead to pare the down to the minimum. So it's now a 'big 2' ('big 3' at high levels), but they absolutely still exist.
And having anything required does not make the 'weird and exciting' bit go away if the required items are excitingly powerful. For example, at 14th level or so, you're expected to get a stat-boost item, but these items no longer merely grant a +2 to a stat (though they do that, too) the Belt of Giant Strength, for example, now also gives Rock Catching and the ability to enlarge themselves with Resonance.
Last I checked, the tension arising from taking 18hp damage in combat is "I'm 18hp closer to dying. Maybe staying in melee range isn't wise here" rather than "Damn, I'm 18hp down and low on resonance so we'll need to rest after this encounter."
That's certainly the concern mid-fight. I'm looking for there to be some vague concern outside the fight as well.
Pedantic argument of what I meant by "investment" aside, this really doesn't change anything. A base feature with no add-ons to it is not really an investment, when it's a feature that everyone of that class gets regardless of what they do or do not choose to do.
Yes it is. When making a character you chose to take that Class rather than another. That's an investment in that Class and its abilities rather than another Class and its abilities instead. This isn't some pedantic definition thing, it's a core principle of how Classes work if the game is at all balanced.
I already demonstrated it has significant opportunity cost. You can't defeat swarms reliably without Channel Negative Energy (unless they're Undead Swarms, which are possible, but very edge-case), meaning you're stuck with doing the same investments as anyone else, which are Acid Flasks, Alchemist's Fires, and so on. You also may not be able to reliably affect enemies who may have some sort of strong resistance or immunity to your melee attacks. Even if the claim is that "Well, now you need to invest in Healing Wands," the opportunity cost is a two way street. I give up the ability to deal with swarms and other non-melee combatants in order to heal up conversely, which means that one way or the other, I'm paying for it.
I never argued with any of this and I'm confused that you think I did. We were talking exclusively about investment in healing so that's what I focused on, but yes, you need to invest in various things to make up for not having Harm available.
That "going negative" statement sounds like sarcasm. Especially since that's not possible in PF2. In addition, going unconscious into Dying is effectively a death sentence as it is, since healing no longer makes you instantaneously conscious, and making a motion to heal your friend just gives the bad guys a reason to kill them outright, since they now know that an enemy who is now down and defenseless, was just healed (giving them information that they're still alive), and needs to be eliminated before they rise back up as a major thorn in their side.
I meant 'going negative energy' (ie: Harm, ie: exactly what you were talking about).
That's just me hoping they realize the mistake in permitting Area Healing wands, since you've just essentially defeated the whole point of Resonance eliminating the "Weak Wand Out of Combat Healing" argument by allowing the Wand to heal for AoE (for more net damage curing), the "puff puff pass" system (where people pass around and "share resonance" to heal out of combat), and simply still being the nuisance it was in PF1, except more added steps.
That was never the point of Resonance. It was to make such a strategy have a real cost. Which it now does.
Maybe if Wands had the "locked for 24 hours" rule in place, it might curtail these shenanigans, but that's easily solved by having the person with the most Charisma (Bard, Sorcerer, Paladin) being the "healstick," which just makes the problem more selective (and specifically abusable) than anything.
I'm not entirely sure what you're suggesting here. Could you clarify?