Don't think i didn't see you sidestep that confirming I was sensical or not >.>
Not really: what makes sense is in the eye of the beholder. I can only say what makes sense to me and doubly so when we're talking about the internal consistency of a fictional universe. This isn't a true/false situation. And to be honest, it's [resonance] logical consistency is, IMO, secondary to what I see as it's mechanical failings and it's unsatisfying [IMO] link to consumables.
PS: I'd feel better with cha = innate magic if we jettison consumables as you aren't attuning them and the creator already powered them [or what is the creator doing when they make one?].
Don't think i didn't see you sidestep that confirming I was sensical or not >.>Not really: what makes sense is in the eye of the beholder. I can only say what makes sense to me and doubly so when we're talking about the internal consistency of a fictional universe. This isn't a true/false situation. And to be honest, it's [resonance] logical consistency is, IMO, secondary to what I see as it's mechanical failings and it's unsatisfying [IMO] link to consumables.
PS: I'd feel better with cha = innate magic if we jettison consumables as you aren't attuning them and the creator already powered them [or what is the creator doing when they make one?].
I was actually meaning that me in and of myself was being sensical or non as a person but good answer.
I don't know about the consumables part other then to say I feel like if consumables weren't included in resonance it really defeats the purpose. Personally my thoughts (and granted until I see everything I don't set anything in stone) would be an extra 3 resonance at 1st level and no separate charges for items it just all comes from your resonance. The only thing that gets fidgety on I feel is potions. Which I could see not using res but it would need some other mechanic to prevent abuse. I personally like the old 1st edition mishap chart for when you combined potions. Alternately it could work like Diablo 3 and the potions have a cool down which you could describe as a magic build up or something or diminishing returns.
(is sensical a word? I've only ever heard nonsensical used)Been in use since the late 18th century. Not terribly popular but it's in some dictionaries like Oxford.
A few ways charisma can be magically linked.Oh, I agree there are some thematic links to be made with charisma: I just don't find them overly compelling. If you or others are fine with it, great for you. At best we have innate magic like racial SLA's and sorcerers but those are now all spells and not really having anything to do with items. *shrug* I don't think there is anything to gain from going over this more as I was just disagreeing tolerance somehow made it all make sense.
As was obvious from the context (quotes) of my post, I was responding to the OP's specific objection "I don't like fighters having innate magic," which Tolerance does solve. I didn't try to address the OP's objections to Charisma being involved because they didn't have any.
Speaking of my posts, are you going to answer my question? It was serious.
She did like the ranger. I remember that.
I don't know about the consumables part other then to say I feel like if consumables weren't included in resonance it really defeats the purpose.For me, I'd at least want separate pools for consumables and normal magic items. You shouldn't have to decide between putting on some spiffy item you found in the adventure and your potions: it's the same issue as having fun feats competing for space with ones for combat. You don't take the old power attack because it's fun/interesting but because it's the best use of the feat slot.
I was responding to the OP's specific objection "I don't like fighters having innate magic," which Tolerance does solve.
I was disagreeing that tolerance in fact DOES solve it: hence my reply.
I didn't try to address the OP's objections to Charisma being involved because they didn't have any.
I was addressing your claim that tolerance solved the issue: For me it didn't and I explained why. I didn't infer that you or he said anything about charisma, I did.
Speaking of my posts, are you going to answer my question? It was serious.
I've liked several things, like almost all of the bard and ranger: I had tried to post that before but it seems the site ate the post. Auto heightened cantrips are pretty nice. Alchemist and rogue have pieces that look good but we'll have to see how the other rules interconnect. Being able to get up to 8th level spells on a normally non-caster is potentially good depending on the cost.
So I've said plenty of positive things. The thing is, positive things blend right into the background while debates stand out as you get back and forth replies Now I have had more I disliked than liked: Add to that the majority is too unknown to put clearly in one or the other.
I think the thing about Greystone is she pretty well posts on everyone of them and she will keep arguing with you till you surrender or move on. so you probably see her complaints more then other peoples. I have seem some positive. I do hardily disagree with most of what she says. however Their is worse ways of putting your opinion out there. I just try not to communicate with those people.
Okay, graystone, I won't consign you to the "pure troll" bin then. I was sorely tempted by your general negativity.
Would you feel better about Tolerance if it came from Wis or Con instead?
And what do you think of Charisma being the driving stat for UMD in PF1?
I think the thing about Greystone is she pretty well posts on everyone of them and she will keep arguing with you till you surrender or move on.
I generally reply when someone replies to one of my posts: often people complain about me continuing to post but do not realize that they are doing the same thing. I'm perfectly willing to let most things pass by when no one posts about my posts. Well except about bulk! :P
Would you feel better about Tolerance if it came from Wis or Con instead?
Much better: both are traditionally used to resist things like drugs and mental attacks, the kind of thing tiredness, fatigue and weakness would cause from exceeding a tolerance.
And what do you think of Charisma being the driving stat for UMD in PF1?
I'd posted something about this before but I'll explain again. UMD is a skill used to trick an item into working in a way it was never meant to be used: in essence, it's kind of like bluff or Disable Device for magic items. You never roll UMD to put on items you were meant to wear/use/wield.
Tolerance/resonance is about how you use your items the right way and not circumventing it's normal function. As such, IMO, it's not really a link to UMD as you are doing the complete opposite action.
Don't you get started on bulk again. -_-
Then I assert that the easiest way to satisfy the original post's request ("get rid of Resonance"), given what the OP's and your particular objections seem to be, without having to rewrite the entire playtest, is as follows.
1) Rename it to Tolerance and count magic uses (from 0 up) instead of uses remaining (from max down).
2) Make the limit level + Wis mod, or level + Con mod, or level + a flat 2-3, whichever you prefer.
3) When you overspend you don't need to roll for success, but you do become sickened in some serious form for a while. Details TBD.
This will accomplish 95% of what RAW Resonance does, because it's mainly about engineering how magic items are used---which these changes leave essentially intact---with making Charisma more important a distant second.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why not try it out in the playtest and decide if you don't like it. Then when you submit your feedback give reasons why you don't like it. If enough people agree with you Paizo might listen and make changes.
Also: It's pretty hilarious that you're asking for ways to house rule out a feature in a game that isn't even out yet. Like how are we supposed to answer that? We would need to see how all the items will interact with resonance in order to even attempt to come up with an answer to that.
I disagree with that sentiment, because Paizo doesn't have to listen to us at all and do whatever they want with their product, because they can and want to. I also know it won't change or get removed simply because of standardized physics: There is no time to implement/create and playtest a back-up system, especially since it will take the (assumed) full playtest time to properly gauge how Resonance is received by players, and doing otherwise would be a (technically) dishonest playtest of the system, something which I know Paizo won't do in regards to major system changes like Resonance. So I am (and the OP is) of the opinion that Resonance won't be changed (in time) for PF2.
In addition, if PF2 said "Everyone starts with Holy Avengers!" are you saying we have to playtest that first before we decide to houserule that out just because the rules say so? I'm of the opinion that people usually know what they want from a game and can tell that at a glance of what a given rule is. They might exaggerate some things, but the bottom line is that players might like a bunch of features a product has, but dislikes certain features it possesses and may want to remove or alter in their fashion, which has been a core philosophy of how this game has been played by numerous others for generations, and is basically how Rule 0 functioned in PF1, which I imagine will make a debut return in PF2 for obvious reasons.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't you get started on bulk again. -_-
But I loathe it so, so much. It slightly distracts me from my not liking resonance. ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like resonance in its aspect as a replacement for item slots. Otherwise, not so much.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree with that sentiment, because Paizo doesn't have to listen to us at all and do whatever they want with their product, because they can and want to.
This is true, but if they didn't intend to listen to the playtest then there wouldn't be much point in having it, would there? It's a lot of time and effort to invest for minimal benefit if you don't change things based on it.
And, indeed, they've made fairly extensive changes after all previous playtests.
I also know it won't change or get removed simply because of standardized physics: There is no time to implement/create and playtest a back-up system, especially since it will take the (assumed) full playtest time to properly gauge how Resonance is received by players, and doing otherwise would be a (technically) dishonest playtest of the system, something which I know Paizo won't do in regards to major system changes like Resonance. So I am (and the OP is) of the opinion that Resonance won't be changed (in time) for PF2.
Resonance is, to quote them 'one of the more experimental things' that they are testing. They expect it might have to go and probably already have an alternate solution or three up their sleeves for that eventuality.
Owen K.C. Stevens has told a story a few times now about a core Starfinder mechanic that met with universal distaste in the playtest and was therefore changed within weeks of the books going to the printer.
The fact that something is in the playtest does not, in any way, mean the design team at Paizo doesn't have contingency plans if people hate it. There might well not be time for us to playtest their contingency, and it is thus likely gonna be less well polished than a version of Resonance we've playtested and streamlined would be, but polish isn't everything and if people really despise Resonance and find it unpleasant to play, they'll go with their fallback option.
In addition, if PF2 said "Everyone starts with Holy Avengers!" are you saying we have to playtest that first before we decide to houserule that out just because the rules say so? I'm of the opinion that people usually know what they want from a game and can tell that at a glance of what a given rule is. They might exaggerate some things, but the bottom line is that players might like a bunch of features a product has, but dislikes certain features it possesses and may want to remove or alter in their fashion, which has been a core philosophy of how this game has been played by numerous others for generations, and is basically how Rule 0 functioned in PF1, which I imagine will make a debut return in PF2 for obvious reasons.
IME, people don't always know how a rule will play at a glance. They know what they want, but not necessarily how well the rule will go about achieving that, and particularly not what the ripple effects of changing the rule will be. I very rarely house rule things before seeing them in play, and never do so with a new system whose interactions and ripple effects I'm unfamiliar with. Doing so is a great way to break the system in various ways.
|
How about magical encumbrance, rather than tolerance? You wouldn't use Constitution for your mundane carrying capacity, nor Wisdom for magical capacity.I'd say wisdom for mental fortitude/endurance. Charisma is force of personality not strength of will. I'd say Intelligence would have a better link to mental 'strength' than charisma.
Even if I could find an explanation for resonance that seemed to make sense, I doubt I could find one that also makes the least bit of sense attached to one use/charged items.
I think it was an older resonance thread where I first wrote it out, but I think of Inteligence as the mental Dexterity, Wisdom as the mental Constitution, and Charisma as the mental Strength in the vague terms of how they are used in Pathfinder.
You need the force, the verve of Charisma to put the weight of your aura into an item to activate it. (I don't think resonance fuels the magic, just gets the item to its activation energy level. The item's internal magic store does the rest)
Alchemists using Int for resonance aligns with the above. The "smarter, not harder" approach is more delicate than usual uses of resonance. Alchemists figured out a methodical way to harness their aura rather than the more intuitive "will it to work" most people use. During preparation, they finesse their resonance to create multiple alchemical items. If they use Quick Alchemy, they get much less bang for their buck.
Why not try it out in the playtest and decide if you don't like it. Then when you submit your feedback give reasons why you don't like it. If enough people agree with you Paizo might listen and make changes.
Also: It's pretty hilarious that you're asking for ways to house rule out a feature in a game that isn't even out yet. Like how are we supposed to answer that? We would need to see how all the items will interact with resonance in order to even attempt to come up with an answer to that.
Happy to amuse you:-)
I should have been more precise - I do not like THE IDEA that, let's say Fighters, have an inner magic resource that determines how magic items interact with them. Playtesting won't change this - it's a totally subjective like/dislike thing.
I think it's supposed to be less about a magical reserve within and more about how well magic interacts with you. A low level guy with no natural magical aptitude shouldn't be able to pick up a wand of fireball and use a charge once every two minutes or so. Over the course of 2 hours, he could deplete the wand of all 50 charges. That's almost a supervillain. Instead, the magic items don't pull from you, but match your natural ability to use such a thing. So while the fighter doesn't have a pool of magic yet to be tapped into, if he has a high charisma, he would find if he looked into it he'd be good at it.
Like a wizard. You can hand a high Intelligence, but no spellcasting ability. But it let's you learn new skills. Could be used for knowledges, but doesn't have to be. Charisma could let you use spells. Or your awesome magic weapon resonate with you. Thus the name. It's about being in tune with it
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree with that sentiment, because Paizo doesn't have to listen to us at all and do whatever they want with their product, because they can and want to.This is true, but if they didn't intend to listen to the playtest then there wouldn't be much point in having it, would there? It's a lot of time and effort to invest for minimal benefit if you don't change things based on it.
And, indeed, they've made fairly extensive changes after all previous playtests.
I also know it won't change or get removed simply because of standardized physics: There is no time to implement/create and playtest a back-up system, especially since it will take the (assumed) full playtest time to properly gauge how Resonance is received by players, and doing otherwise would be a (technically) dishonest playtest of the system, something which I know Paizo won't do in regards to major system changes like Resonance. So I am (and the OP is) of the opinion that Resonance won't be changed (in time) for PF2.Resonance is, to quote them 'one of the more experimental things' that they are testing. They expect it might have to go and probably already have an alternate solution or three up their sleeves for that eventuality.
Owen K.C. Stevens has told a story a few times now about a core Starfinder mechanic that met with universal distaste in the playtest and was therefore changed within weeks of the books going to the printer.
The fact that something is in the playtest does not, in any way, mean the design team at Paizo doesn't have contingency plans if people hate it. There might well not be time for us to playtest their contingency, and it is thus likely gonna be less well polished than a version of Resonance we've playtested and streamlined would be, but polish isn't everything and if people really despise Resonance and find it unpleasant to play, they'll go with their fallback option.
In...
Being open to feedback does not mean feedback will be taken into proper consideration. If somebody says they hate Resonance, with no reason to fall back on, they won't take that viewpoint seriously. I can understand why, but even if reasons are listed, developers might disagree with those reasons and thereby still disregard the input, which might be legitimate.
While a reasonable expectation, we have no clue if this is even true, or if we can expect these hypotheticals to be properly tested like the initial mechanic. Another angle of consideration is that, if this system is the one they went with, and it has such volatile feedback, I can only imagine how much worse the other system(s) they didn't select might be if they decide to go with a hypothetical.
Yes, it's not easy to glance at a rule and realize there is potential abuse (or unintended consequences), but that is more along the lines of abilities like Simulacrum, which are more open-ended and have growing limitless possibilities. Resonance can be similar to this, with expanding magic items, but with the mechanics we are already aware of, we can make an appropriate judgement call on it as a whole.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like resonance in its aspect as a replacement for item slots. Otherwise, not so much.
Item slots still exist, they are just less codified than before, which is a bad thing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like resonance in its aspect as a replacement for item slots. Otherwise, not so much.Item slots still exist, they are just less codified than before, which is a bad thing.
I don't think they do exist. If you can sell your GM on getting magic overshoes for your magic boots, or to wear three magic hats at once, more power to you.
I'd certainly allow anything a player can demonstrate via example is even remotely plausible. Nine capes? Go for it.
"People wearing implausible outfits they find cool" is as core part of the aesthetic fantasy of this sort of things as "people wielding impractical weapons" (e.g. oversized swords).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the thing about Greystone is she pretty well posts on everyone of them and she will keep arguing with you till you surrender or move on. so you probably see her complaints more then other peoples. I have seem some positive. I do hardily disagree with most of what she says. however Their is worse ways of putting your opinion out there. I just try not to communicate with those people.
Part of me kind of likes wandering into a thread and seeing a dwarf and a pointy-eared entity arguing over well, anything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like resonance in its aspect as a replacement for item slots. Otherwise, not so much.Item slots still exist, they are just less codified than before, which is a bad thing.I don't think they do exist. If you can sell your GM on getting magic overshoes for your magic boots, or to wear three magic hats at once, more power to you.
I'd certainly allow anything a player can demonstrate via example is even remotely plausible. Nine capes? Go for it.
Well, the devs disagree, because they do appear to exist:
"A few items have this two-part listing because they're hard to wear multiples of. Multiple cloaks, multiple boots... not practical. Multiple rings or amulets? No problem."
So yeah, Resonance didn't get rid of item slots, except for amulets and rings.
|
|
Well, the devs disagree, because they do appear to exist:
"A few items have this two-part listing because they're hard to wear multiples of. Multiple cloaks, multiple boots... not practical. Multiple rings or amulets? No problem."
So yeah, Resonance didn't get rid of item slots, except for amulets and rings.
Having no defined list of slots makes the system extensible. We may start with just boots, cloaks, and glove slots. Then some freelancer wants to make some cool masks that are too powerful to allow multiples. Instead of shoe-horning into "eyes", they can just make "masks" a slot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having no defined list of slots makes the system extensible. We may start with just boots, cloaks, and glove slots. Then some freelancer wants to make some cool masks that are too powerful to allow multiples. Instead of shoe-horning into "eyes", they can just make "masks" a slot.Well, the devs disagree, because they do appear to exist:
"A few items have this two-part listing because they're hard to wear multiples of. Multiple cloaks, multiple boots... not practical. Multiple rings or amulets? No problem."
So yeah, Resonance didn't get rid of item slots, except for amulets and rings.
But are "masks" stackable with "eyes" or not?
I find your post very funny because I've seen a lot of people arguing "chest" and "body" were the weirder of the slot decisions in PF1, but here you come along saying that PF2 being able to add slot restrictions willy nilly is a good thing. It isn't, by the way, it'd be a giant logistical and balance nightmare.
Besides, you could expand the PF1 slot list extensively too. There was nothing stopping a GM from making a sock slot. Or a pants slot. Or an undershirt slot. Or a face slot. Or an ear slot. The list goes on, really. The devs never did it though, I'd assume because they realised it'd be a terrible design decision and set a bad precedent.
My main point was that Resonance didn't get rid of item slots, it got rid of some item slot restrictions. In fact, I'd be willing to bet most slots are still a thing, the changes will mainly come in a greater variety by removing the Big 6, not opening up slots.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know... I got a lot more flak like 'why can't I wear a third ring on my toe' than I ever got like 'why can't I wear two pair of boots'.
Also Paizo did invent new Item slots in Inner Sea Magic IIRC, you had a tattoo slot for every standard slot.
|
|
Having no defined list of slots makes the system extensible. We may start with just boots, cloaks, and glove slots. Then some freelancer wants to make some cool masks that are too powerful to allow multiples. Instead of shoe-horning into "eyes", they can just make "masks" a slot.Well, the devs disagree, because they do appear to exist:
"A few items have this two-part listing because they're hard to wear multiples of. Multiple cloaks, multiple boots... not practical. Multiple rings or amulets? No problem."
So yeah, Resonance didn't get rid of item slots, except for amulets and rings.
But are "masks" stackable with "eyes" or not?
I find your post very funny because I've seen a lot of people arguing "chest" and "body" were the weirder of the slot decisions in PF1, but here you come along saying that PF2 being able to add slot restrictions willy nilly is a good thing. It isn't, by the way, it'd be a giant logistical and balance nightmare.
Besides, you could expand the PF1 slot list extensively too. There was nothing stopping a GM from making a sock slot. Or a pants slot. Or an undershirt slot. Or a face slot. Or an ear slot. The list goes on, really. The devs never did it though, I'd assume because they realised it'd be a terrible design decision and set a bad precedent.
My main point was that Resonance didn't get rid of item slots, it got rid of some item slot restrictions. In fact, I'd be willing to bet most slots are still a thing, the changes will mainly come in a greater variety by removing the Big 6, not opening up slots.
Are masks the same things as eyes? No? You answer your own question in the asking.
No, in PF1, the list of slots was fairly settled. Things were balanced around the fixed slots. If you wanted a mask in PF1, you had to put it in the eyes slot and add "doesn't stack with other eye slot items except masks" or other silliness. In PF2, you actually can do a whole wardrobe of slots without breaking balance or system assumptions. Shirts, vests, trousers, overcoats, what have you.
I agree resonance didn't really get rid of slots. That's okay.
I don't know... I got a lot more flak like 'why can't I wear a third ring on my toe' than I ever got like 'why can't I wear two pair of boots'.
Also Paizo did invent new Item slots in Inner Sea Magic IIRC, you had a tattoo slot for every standard slot.
Don't forget shadow piercings: you could have 3 items in a single magic item slot. For instance you could have a tattoo, piercing AND a set of gloves, boots or bracers all active at once.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or bribe your GM into letting you pay double for a Slotless Belt, or pay half-again the cost of the less expensive to just put a second enchantment on your first belt. All things the RAW allows IIRC.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like resonance in its aspect as a replacement for item slots. Otherwise, not so much.Item slots still exist, they are just less codified than before, which is a bad thing.I don't think they do exist. If you can sell your GM on getting magic overshoes for your magic boots, or to wear three magic hats at once, more power to you.
I'd certainly allow anything a player can demonstrate via example is even remotely plausible. Nine capes? Go for it.
"People wearing implausible outfits they find cool" is as core part of the aesthetic fantasy of this sort of things as "people wielding impractical weapons" (e.g. oversized swords).
As someone else stated, a blog post states that slots exist, but are more freeform than before. There might be items designed to be worn with other similar items (I feel Trinkets will fit this paradigm more often than not), but I would rather not leave that up to the developers to faithfully support that paradigm, nor third party producers for balance purposes.
I was more of a fan of the whole "combine magic items into one" rule (even if it was expensive), since it allowed people to merge multiple items they want in the same slot to make something unique to their character. Feather Step Boots of Haste, Falcon's Aim Bracers of Archery, the list goes on. In addition, it allowed more flexibility with the Big 6, so that even if players have to be shoehorned into buying, say, a Cloak of Resistance, they can still pair that up with Juggernaut Pauldrons.
Either way, as it stands, a player is less likely to run into issues if he simply buys rings and amulets that grant him all of these bonuses. I wasn't kidding when I said this just turned from Pathfinder to Blingfinder. I'm now going to make a PC who carries around so much bling from Rings and Amulets that he needs hardly anything else.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm now going to make a PC who carries around so much bling from Rings and Amulets that he needs hardly anything else.
I'm not going to be happy until I get a Mr. T set of gold chains. ;)
I find it baffling that being able to wear 10 rings and a hundred amulets is supposed to be a selling point of resonance. Why couldn't we have just increased the number of those slots?
Personally, I loathe the concept of abandoning clearly defined item slots. I don't want to open that can of worms when someone wants to wear something that doesn't make logical sense, and there's no rule to cite. Also, I believe flavor is lost when you can make any magic item in any form and every item competes with every other item in existence.
I am also a fan of item slots. I like them and they make sense to me.
|
|
Being open to feedback does not mean feedback will be taken into proper consideration. If somebody says they hate Resonance, with no reason to fall back on, they won't take that viewpoint seriously. I can understand why, but even if reasons are listed, developers might disagree with those reasons and thereby still disregard the input, which might be legitimate.
There are going to be surveys. And if the dissatisfaction is indeed widespread, they'll absolutely pay attention to it since they are a business and want to sell a product people will actually buy. Widespread dissatisfaction will thus be taken into account even if individual examples are not.
While a reasonable expectation, we have no clue if this is even true, or if we can expect these hypotheticals to be properly tested like the initial mechanic. Another angle of consideration is that, if this system is the one they went with, and it has such volatile feedback, I can only imagine how much worse the other system(s) they didn't select might be if they decide to go with a hypothetical.
They went with the most extreme version of several mechanics, including this one, on the assumption that it's easier to calibrate something by using a more extreme version and then rolling it back to somewhere between the PF1 version and this extreme version, than by using a less extreme version and maybe not knowing how much further to take it if it's insufficient.
Yes, it's not easy to glance at a rule and realize there is potential abuse (or unintended consequences), but that is more along the lines of abilities like Simulacrum, which are more open-ended and have growing limitless possibilities. Resonance can be similar to this, with expanding magic items, but with the mechanics we are already aware of, we can make an appropriate judgement call on it as a whole.
No, we really can't. They've fundamentally changed the whole way magic items work. The consequences of removing or altering Resonance thus multiply out by the number of different magic items balanced on the assumption of it's existence.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't even bother arguing with the people that think the feedback is pointless but yet still give feedback. Their is just something about that I don't trust.
For those who don't feel the flavor of Charisma's connection to magic as some element of their "spirit" fits, there are other examples in PF1 than Sorcerors (and other spontaneous casters) and use magic device. It's also tied to basically every spell-like ability (save DC, minimum stat to use SLA), smite evil (damage dealt), lay on hands (# of uses), channel energy (# of uses and save DC), the magic animating undead (used for HP instead of Constitution), incorporeal creatures' AC. Most of those have sort of a "spirit" flavor to them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't even bother arguing with the people that think the feedback is pointless but yet still give feedback. Their is just something about that I don't trust.
People giving feedback even though they think it's pointless is not much different than people buy lottery tickets even though they think it's pointless, or even presidential/congressional voting; they know that the odds of them being valued or worth something are against them, but they still do it anyway in the hopes that they get results favorable to them. In this case, I can still give feedback, but much like the odds of buying a winning lottery ticket, I won't expect it to go anywhere or be valued as anything except a desperate attempt to get something I want in a game.
No, we really can't. They've fundamentally changed the whole way magic items work. The consequences of removing or altering Resonance thus multiply out by the number of different magic items balanced on the assumption of it's existence.
Yes they have changed how they work, but you're missing the point I made: We still have enough information in relation to the magic items to gauge if we like or dislike the system on that aspect. If I have to spend Resonance for a 1 minute Invisibility duration, when I have to worry about how much Resonance I have in relation to healing options (which counts as effective HP for a given adventuring day), I won't like it due to how much it shoehorns my playstyle into balancing effective HP and cool magical effects.
For those who don't feel the flavor of Charisma's connection to magic as some element of their "spirit" fits, there are other examples in PF1 than Sorcerors (and other spontaneous casters) and use magic device.
We've pretty much beaten of a quadruped that is no longer living for sorcerer and UMD: covered already.
SLA's: cover the range of stats: con, wis, cha, int are all there.
Smite evil: you are "call out to the powers of good to aid her in her struggle against evil"... Seems like a cha check to me, an appeal and not innate.
lay on hands: has more to do with the classes casting stat IMO and/or the same point as smite.
channel energy: I'm not sure manipulating divine energy is the same as innate magic everyone has. Well, unless you're using a divine item.
Undead: Unlike mortal creatures they all are infused with magic to animate them. I wouldn't argue if THEY had resonance, or any other creature "animated by spiritual or supernatural forces".
It just isn't as cut and dry as you make it seem. A rogue using minor/major magic uses int alone with the wizard using school abilities. A kineticist uses con [which seems the BEST match for using your 'internal' magic], A cleric uses wisdom for domain powers. This makes it so there really isn't a stand out stat for this kind of thing.
Graystone, are you familiar with the concept of animal magnetism, which gave rise to the concept of "personal magnetism," which has become a synonym for charisma?
|
|
Yes they have changed how they work, but you're missing the point I made: We still have enough information in relation to the magic items to gauge if we like or dislike the system on that aspect. If I have to spend Resonance for a 1 minute Invisibility duration, when I have to worry about how much Resonance I have in relation to healing options (which counts as effective HP for a given adventuring day), I won't like it due to how much it shoehorns my playstyle into balancing effective HP and cool magical effects.
People often assume they will dislike new dynamics before trying them. They are sometimes correct, but by no means always.
But I actually wasn't talking about that. I was talking about trying to remove the Resonance rules before seeing the way they work mechanically and interact with all the other rules. And how it's a terrible idea because it will warp the game in utterly unpredictable ways that cannot even be compensated for since you don't know the way things normally work.
Imagine that someone, having never played PF1, decided that they hated the slots system and didn't like charges so items with charges were now unlimited use, and you could have as many items in one slot as you wanted. The results of a game using those changes diverge rapidly and extremely from those of a standard game of PF1.
That's the sort of thing you're courting by removing Resonance without understanding how it interacts with the magic item rules. And is a terrible idea. Which is sorta the whole point I was making there.
Graystone, are you familiar with the concept of animal magnetism, which gave rise to the concept of "personal magnetism," which has become a synonym for charisma?
If you look at the article, what you say is not the case: It's "an invisible natural force (lebensmagnetismus) possessed by all living/animate beings (humans, animals, vegetables, etc.)." So the average houseplant has it unlike charisma. It's dealt with as a "magnetic fluid"
"This fluid consists of fire, air and spirit, and like all other fluids tends to an equilibrium, therefore it is easy to conceive how the efforts which the bodies make towards each other produce animal electricity, which in fact is no more than the effect produced between two bodies, one of which has more motion than the other; a phenomenon serving to prove that the body which has most motion communicates it to the other, until the medium of motion becomes an equilibrium between the two bodies, and then this equality of motion produces animal electricity."
I'm unsure if [personal] magnetism is linked in any way to animal magnetism: as far as I know a person's 'magnetism' is his ability to attract others, as in the definition of magnetism itself and not the vitalist theory on life energy.
You can say that but it doesn't make any sense to me. Wisdom and intelligence are also "associated with magical aptitude" and only one is "cosmically associated" with mental fortitude: wisdom. If a spell takes a 'toll on mind/spirit', I don't expect charisma to help with the saving throw.People with higher charisma take less psychic harm from magic items because charisma is cosmically associated with magical aptitude (untapped or otherwise) in Pathfinderland.Flip it to Tolerance.I know for myself, tolerance doesn't make better sense. If it's a 'toll on mind/spirit', I'd expect wisdom to help but it doesn't: how charming you are does... So I sweet talk the items into being less of a toll? Delude myself into ignoring the toll? I'm just not getting a satisfying connection between Charisma and tolerance.
Days late, but I wouldn't mind charisma becoming the ability for Will saves. Wisdom will have perception still, which in some ways already acts as a saving throw AND is going to be the most common way to roll initiative. Moving Will to CHA spreads the load around.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Days late, but I wouldn't mind charisma becoming the ability for Will saves. Wisdom will have perception still, which in some ways already acts as a saving throw AND is going to be the most common way to roll initiative. Moving Will to CHA spreads the load around.You can say that but it doesn't make any sense to me. Wisdom and intelligence are also "associated with magical aptitude" and only one is "cosmically associated" with mental fortitude: wisdom. If a spell takes a 'toll on mind/spirit', I don't expect charisma to help with the saving throw.People with higher charisma take less psychic harm from magic items because charisma is cosmically associated with magical aptitude (untapped or otherwise) in Pathfinderland.Flip it to Tolerance.I know for myself, tolerance doesn't make better sense. If it's a 'toll on mind/spirit', I'd expect wisdom to help but it doesn't: how charming you are does... So I sweet talk the items into being less of a toll? Delude myself into ignoring the toll? I'm just not getting a satisfying connection between Charisma and tolerance.
Tbh I quite liked that being an option in 4e. I can see the rationale for wisdom against say, mob mentality effects. But I think for direct one on one force of will sheer strength of personality is a good fit.
Graystone, are you familiar with the concept of animal magnetism, which gave rise to the concept of "personal magnetism," which has become a synonym for charisma?
If you look at the article, what you say is not the case: It's "an invisible natural force (lebensmagnetismus) possessed by all living/animate beings (humans, animals, vegetables, etc.)." So the average houseplant has it unlike charisma. It's dealt with as a "magnetic fluid"
"This fluid consists of fire, air and spirit, and like all other fluids tends to an equilibrium, therefore it is easy to conceive how the efforts which the bodies make towards each other produce animal electricity, which in fact is no more than the effect produced between two bodies, one of which has more motion than the other; a phenomenon serving to prove that the body which has most motion communicates it to the other, until the medium of motion becomes an equilibrium between the two bodies, and then this equality of motion produces animal electricity."
I'm unsure if [personal] magnetism is linked in any way to animal magnetism: as far as I know a person's 'magnetism' is his ability to attract others, as in the definition of magnetism itself and not the vitalist theory on life energy.
I read the article, of course. I didn't say animal magnetism == PF charisma including exclusion of houseplants; I said the concept of animal magnetism gave rise to the concept of personal magnetism, which is commonly identified with charisma. Though come to think of it I only care that they're related, not what the ordering is. If you're unsure whether personal magnetism and animal magnetism are related, try googling them.
Anyway, in Pathfinder it's definitely one component of charisma;
Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.
So, with UMD you're mesmerizing a magic item into functioning.
I said the concept of animal magnetism gave rise to the concept of personal magnetism
And I disagree. As I said, I see nothing that indicates animal magnetism did that or merely the ACTUAL effects of scientific magnetism, the electromagnetic force.
EI: a physical phenomenon produced by the motion of electric charge, resulting in attractive and repulsive forces between objects got equated with the ability to attract and charm people.
PS: As to the google search, the animal magnetism THEY speak of isn't the one you had a link for before. It's NOT linked by the historical version of animal magnetism but the the more modern version that is "a quality of sexual attractiveness". It's more that the modern version is type of modern magnetism. None of them are about historical mesmerism.
PPS: And I'm not sure how ANY of this relates to resonance in any substantial way: animal magnetism [historical] has closer ties to do with Ki than resonance, so it seems to have more to do with spell points.