How to Not use Resonance?

[GRuzom]

I don't like resonance at all and plan to house rule it out of the game, but - how?

Any suggestions?

[Dire Ursus]

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.

[The Raven Black]

Put back the PF1 system : x times per day and item slots seem to be what disappeared thanks to Resonance

Edit - you should still try to playtest with Resonance as Dire Ursus wrote to see how it feels in play and if you plan on giving playtest feedback, which has great value to the devs and thus, in the end, to all of us ;-)

[Dasrak]

I plan to playtest it as is, but if that doesn't work for me then the simplest quick-fix will be just to ignore it for consumables.

[PossibleCabbage]

I think "go ahead and spawn potions,wands, and the like" but leave resonance for stuff like worn magic items and activating your boots of speed is going to be a popular house-rule.

Largely since it doesn't require rewriting every single magic item in the game.

[Bleys Feuerteufel]

IMO I would leave it in for at least your initial sessions, for the aforementioned reason: see how it works with the whole and provide feedback.

It could be that it works very nicely with everything else that's in PF2.

It could also be that it's the most horrible thing you've encountered (even worse than the full-plate-wearing paladin meeting that advanced rust monster!).

If you have feedback then it could end up shaping how the rule will look when PF2 officially releases and that system could be the one you can use out of the box and not have to worry about redoing things all over the place to house rule it out.

[Stone Dog]

+1 for playtest as written, give good feedback,see what happens in 2019.

Or if it isn't for the playtest, ignore it for consumables for sure.

[Captain Morgan]

Yeah, if you house rule it out of the playtest, you are making your feedback pretty much irrelevant to Paizo and thereby increasing the odds it stays in.

[Cantriped]

Can't really provide useful advice on removing a critical feature of a system we know very little about and cannot properly research.

For what it is worth I don't like Resonance, but I didn't like Attacks Of Opportunity either and I've still been using them for almost two decades now. In the either case I fear the rules too deeply integrated to easily remove. Currently most of my planned house-rules for Resonance involve minimal changes to the Resonance rules to 'patch' the problems I see with them.

I've posted some of them here and there but another I haven't posted recently is adding a clause to the end of the Potion of Healing stipulating that the drinker "automatically succeeds at overspending checks made to activate a potion of healing" (or something like that). Meaning that they still cost RP if you have it, but never turn into colored water just because you don't.

[Phntm888]

I see a lot of threads about people who are talking about how much they don't like Resonance (I'm ambivalent at the moment, waiting to see how it works), and I keep thinking back to this bit of the blog that explained it:

Paizo Blog: Trinkets and Treasures wrote:

We expect Resonance Points to be a contentious topic, and we're really curious to see how it plays at your tables. It's one of the more experimental changes to the game, and the playtest process gives us a chance to see it in the wild before committing to it.

Emphasis mine. Now, obviously, I am not a developer and do not speak for Paizo, but to me, that seems to say, "If Resonance is either poorly received or doesn't work, we're willing to either revise it or get rid of it entirely."

So, +1 for use it in the Playtest as written, and provide Paizo with as much feedback as you can about it - especially if you don't like it. The more detailed your feedback, the better Paizo can reconfigure it to something that works for everyone, or, if there isn't a way to make it work, possibly even get rid of it.

If you really want to go for a house rule, I'd say try one that hybridizes the system instead of getting rid of it. For instance, Resonance only applies to how many magic items you can wear (cloaks, armor, rings, etc.). You'll probably need to modify the Resonance Pool (maybe equal to Charisma modifier, plus 1 for every 5 levels) so that you don't have people wearing 20 rings, but that could work.

For a smaller change, instead of locking Resonance into Charisma, you could let the players choose which stat Resonance works off of, thus allowing them to pick their strongest stat instead of forcing them to use what very well could be a tertiary stat for their class (or even a complete non-priority). If you don't want them to choose just any stat, limit it to mental ones (Int, Wis, Cha).

If you want to get rid of it entirely, you could just go back to the old item slot system. Really, it's up to you how you want to house rule it out, depending on whether or not there are any aspects of it you like after giving it a try in the Playtest.

[Elleth]

Houserules will also need to be thought through carefully, so as not to render the alchemist useless or make their ability to spawn consumables too strong with respect to other tactics.

[GRuzom]

Dire Ursus wrote:

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.

[dragonhunterq]

I have not made secret my ... concerns ... about resonance, but it would be churlish not to give it a shakedown in the wild as it were.

[GRuzom]

Cantriped wrote:

Can't really provide useful advice on removing a critical feature of a system we know very little about and cannot properly research.

For what it is worth I don't like Resonance, but I didn't like Attacks Of Opportunity either and I've still been using them for almost two decades now. In the either case I fear the rules too deeply integrated to easily remove. Currently most of my planned house-rules for Resonance involve minimal changes to the Resonance rules to 'patch' the problems I see with them.

I've posted some of them here and there but another I haven't posted recently is adding a clause to the end of the Potion of Healing stipulating that the drinker "automatically succeeds at overspending checks made to activate a potion of healing" (or something like that). Meaning that they still cost RP if you have it, but never turn into colored water just because you don't.

Thank you all for your feedback:-)

Good Gaming!
Gruzom

[Fuzzy-Wuzzy]

GRuzom wrote:

Dire Ursus wrote:

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.

Flip it to Tolerance. When you attune or use a magic item, you're mentally/spiritually poking at it for a moment, and that takes a toll on your mind/spirit. This probably works better (IMHO) if you houserule overspending to always work but make you very, very sick (as has been suggested in other threads). But you can leave the rest of the Resonance rules intact while viewing them differently.

[DerNils]

I still look Forward to see how it actually Impacts the game. I tried to look back into my gaming experience and tried to see where if ever this would have made any impact on my games.

I came up with very few, but had to realise that I very rarely have played high Level/loads of Magic items plus consumables campaigns.

What I did come up with were instances where low Level adventureres had to take several healing potions because they rolled badly. In that case, it would have been hurtful to the Progress of the campaign - because in These cases I actually had spawned These healing Caches in order to keep them going after some rough fights.

TL/DR - Resonance sounds unnecessary and useless to me, but that is what a playtest is for.

[Crayon]

Will probably need to see the full rules before any reasonable suggestions can be made. Fortunately, it's not too long a wait...

[Gloom]

I've been working on a "Resonance Light" system that takes on the good parts of the existing resonance details they've shared without going overboard to the point it seems unattractive.

Resonance Points

Resonance Points are gained at a rate of 1 per Character Level. Casting spells and using consumables do not consume resonance points. They can only be invested into items to allow you to harness their magical energy.

Potions/Scrolls/Consumables:

These items consume no resonance when used. They are used for typical "Spell in a Can" options.

Trinkets:

These items are attached to Armor or Weapons as detailed in their normal description. Rather than being consumable they're invested. Invest 1 Resonance into them at the start of the day and they can activate X number of times based on the item. Increase cost accordingly.

Wands:

Rather than being consumable wands are invested. Invest 1 Resonance into them at the start of the day to attune a wand to yourself. Once attuned you gain a number of charges that can be used to cast that spell. Additionally, you can use a spell slot of that level or higher to cast a spell from the wand in place of using a charge. Increase cost accordingly.

Note: When a wand has been attuned it cannot be attuned by another person for 24 hours.

Additional Note: Wands containing Cantrips do not have a number of charges and simply allow you to cast those spells as an action once the wand has been attuned.

Staves:

Invest 1 Resonance into a staff at the start of the day to attune it to yourself. Once attuned you gain a number of charges that can be used to cast the spells within the staff. Additionally, you can use a spell slot of appropriate level to cast the spells within a staff. Cantrips can be cast with no cost. Finally, the staff grants an item bonus themed to the purpose of the staff such as a Staff of Healing granting a bonus to heal spells or a Staff of Fire granting bonus fire damage to fire spells.

Note: When a staff has been attuned it cannot be attuned by another person for 24 hours.

Rings/Wondrous Items/Armor/Weapons:

Invest 1 Resonance at the start of the day to gain the bonuses of the item. Some items allow the ability to cast spells either an unlimited or a specific number of times per day.

[Crayon]

Actually, since it has been established that Magic Items are set to be more or less optional in 2e, it might be possible to run a Resonance-free campaign by simply the affected items from your game.

Of course, the Alchemist might be rendered unplayable as could other classes depending on how their features interact with Resonance.

[ErichAD]

Just strip it out of the game, it doesn't really do anything at the moment.

For items like the invisibility cloak that could be used repeatedly that probably should not be available for repeated use, restrict them to once per combat or require spell points to use them. It would be a per item sort of balancing issue.

[Excaliburproxy]

As a general note, you will probably want to increase the costs of consumables (and other items that use resonance in the base rules) because the change to not using resonance increases the values of those item by a potentially substantial amount.

And really, resonance is a problem that solves a lot of balance issues regarding low level magic items so if you are looking to replace it then you are going to really want a more comprehensive solution than anything people list here. I would maybe suggest combining something like the "resonance lite" rules above with stylizing away the magic item economy and giving your players a sort of "magic item draft". For instance,
Choose 1 Magic Item (any) of Your Level
Choose 1 Magic Item (Weapon or Staff) of Your Level
Choose 1 Magic Item (Armor or Bracers of Armor) of Your Level

Choose 1 Magic Item (any) of Your Level-1 or Lower -OR-
Choose 2 Magic Items (any) of Your Level - 3 or Lower -OR-
Choose 1 Wand of Your Level or Lower [3 Charges; regain one charge a day]

Choose 3 Consumable Items of Your Level or Lower [You Are Assumed to be able to replace these items when you have a week of downtime]

This is just a general idea. You would really want the "draft" to be a little more flexible/complex than what I am talking about here. Like: I could see the consumables to be generalized to "Choose between 3 and 5 consumables of your level or lower worth at most X and totaling in value at most Y"; note that a key to this being balanced is that you have a finite number of consumables to get slotted in this way (or otherwise people will tend toward getting dozens of cheap heals with these potion slots).

Crayon wrote:

Actually, since it has been established that Magic Items are set to be more or less optional in 2e, it might be possible to run a Resonance-free campaign by simply the affected items from your game.

Of course, the Alchemist might be rendered unplayable as could other classes depending on how their features interact with Resonance.

You would essentially need to give the Alchemist a pool of pseudo-resonance that you adjust one way or another.

[RangerWickett]

I'm curious whether the system could support combining what they currently have now for Resonance and Spell Points. Everyone gets Resonance equal to level + Cha. Alchemists get a bit more. You can spend Resonance to attune to magic items, activate magic items, or use various class powers.

That would feel better narratively, I think, but might have weird balance effects, like making clerics not want to wear magic items or something.

[graystone]

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:

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.

[Vidmaster7]

I feel like you can try it out for play test. I don't think that is asking to much. Frankly however if you go into it trying to make it not work you will probably force it not to work. I say go into it trying to make it work. If it doesn't work then you have a great case. That is just a plain good way of doing the research. If it doesn't work with you trying to make it work then your case is that much stronger.

[Excaliburproxy]

graystone wrote:

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:

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.

People with higher charisma take less psychic harm from magic items because charisma is cosmically associated with magical aptitude (untapped or otherwise) in Pathfinderland.

[Vidmaster7]

RangerWickett wrote:

I'm curious whether the system could support combining what they currently have now for Resonance and Spell Points. Everyone gets Resonance equal to level + Cha. Alchemists get a bit more. You can spend Resonance to attune to magic items, activate magic items, or use various class powers.

That would feel better narratively, I think, but might have weird balance effects, like making clerics not want to wear magic items or something.

I actually kind of like that in a way. would just have to award a good amount more res.

[graystone]

Excaliburproxy wrote:

graystone wrote:

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:

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.

People with higher charisma take less psychic harm from magic items because charisma is cosmically associated with magical aptitude (untapped or otherwise) in Pathfinderland.

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.

[Vidmaster7]

graystone wrote:

Excaliburproxy wrote:

graystone wrote:

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:

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.

People with higher charisma take less psychic harm from magic items because charisma is cosmically associated with magical aptitude (untapped or otherwise) in Pathfinderland.

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.

Well then lets dig into magic. so w know sorcerers have innate magic and theirs is based on charisma. Dragons are the same way. Wizards who study magic and learn to cast it through master of recreating spells. Its not innate so the study part and how well they learn is INT based. Wisdom is more of the will power and faith based magic stat.

I would say dragons probably have the most experience with magic if nothing else because there older. If they use charisma for their spell like abilities. there is probably something to it.

Even traditionally back in 1st edition charisma had to do with ego and dealing with intelligent magic items.

So charisma makes as much sense as anything to me. I think having a characters will save be based on wisdom or charisma has at least a decent logic behind it. Of course I don't think dividing the saves back up into more categories is the way to go so I would say no on something like fort, ref, will, magic. However feats that replace wisdom with charisma for will saves. Yeah I could see that.

But yeah to me charisma is just as much a stat for magic as any of them could be.

[Stone Dog]

There are two main things in language and history that charisma is. One is charm and social appeal. The other is supernatural power. Granted, in our world this power is based on divine gifts, but for D&D it has been inherent as often as, if not more often than, bestowed power.

As long as there has been a 3rd edition of D&D as well as Pathfinder, the game has pushed to two of those definitions together. For 18 years of the game, people with high Charisma have both a natural social aptitude and a greater ability to push magic around with raw force of this supernatural talent. It isn't an accident that the Mesmerist is based on Charisma as well as the Sorcerer and other internally powered classes. Even the Oracle, since its power cannot be taken away like a Cleric's can implies that its power once bestowed belongs to the Oracle utterly.

In this sense, Resonance is only new in application, not concept. Resonance is a resource derived from this personal potency that grows with experience and gained vitality, and can be poured into magic items to power them. Aside from the Alchemist who has apparently developed techniques to leverage applied thaumatology instead of relying on more personal gifts.

That being said I'm not a fan of everything that is being done with Resonance so far, but I do think that the basic concept is sound and should be polished to see what can be done with it.

My personal tipping point might be how it is handled when you are out of Resonance and are starting to pull water out of a dry well.

[Vidmaster7]

OOh I just had a great idea. Why not add a little bit of extra resonance based on race. humans get 2 + charisma + level while elfs might get 3 dwarfs might get just 1. I suppose charisma is already kind of reducing the dwarfs however so maybe not get the dwarfs less but you get the idea Kind of a make a race that is innately more magical by giving some extra resonance. I know I've heard complaints that 1 res at 1st level isn't enough but I don't think it would need much more then that to be enough.

[Fuzzy-Wuzzy]

Graystone, remind me. What positive opinions have you expressed about PF2 at any point?

[graystone]

Vidmaster7 wrote:

So charisma makes as much sense as anything to me.

I can agree if it's your own innate magic powering items: IMO, that at least has thematic links.

Vidmaster7 wrote:

I think having a characters will save be based on wisdom or charisma has at least a decent logic behind it.

Charisma to saves is something you have to go out of your way to gain: you need something special. So, IMO, it doesn't have the save tradition and logic as it wasn't something every single living creature could do, unlike resonance.

PS: In od&d, ego was it's own score and it + brains were used vs intelligent items. 1e, it was the personality strength of a character = int + cha + level vs ego based on every mental stat, abilities, powers and plusses. in 3.5 was similar to 1e but vs a will save so it's used to set the attack DC, not a save. Pathfinder removed stats from the score completely. So Cha really isn't a standout here.

[Vidmaster7]

graystone wrote:

Vidmaster7 wrote:

So charisma makes as much sense as anything to me.

I can agree if it's your own innate magic powering items: IMO, that at least has thematic links.

Vidmaster7 wrote:

I think having a characters will save be based on wisdom or charisma has at least a decent logic behind it.

Charisma to saves is something you have to go out of your way to gain: you need something special. So, IMO, it doesn't have the save tradition and logic as it wasn't something every single living creature could do, unlike resonance.

PS: In od&d, ego was it's own score and it + brains were used vs intelligent items. 1e, it was the personality strength of a character = int + cha + level vs ego based on every mental stat, abilities, powers and plusses. in 3.5 was similar to 1e but vs a will save so it's used to set the attack DC, not a save. Pathfinder removed stats from the score completely. So Cha really isn't a standout here.

I think the formula was actually a little more complicated for ego OR maybe I'm thinking of psionic points. (something like 2.5 of charisma 2 of int 1.5 wisdom something weird like that anyways) They liked making up complicated systems... but yes it was all mental stats I just wasn't talking about those others at the time but I suppose it was a bit disingenuous to leave them out.

[Matthew Downie]

graystone wrote:

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.

It doesn't make sense to me that Clerics use Wisdom for spellcasting (they should use Charisma, since they're basically asking a god nicely to give them more power) and that Sorcerers use Charisma (they should use Wisdom, which represents their insight into their own magical abilities). And it doesn't make sense that Charisma is for Use Magic Device (that falls into the insight/instinct region).

Charisma for Resonance is equally nonsensical, but it's consistent with the past, and helps to balance out a stat that is otherwise mechanically weak for most classes.

[Vidmaster7]

Its really the thing about magic really you can kind of define it however you want cause it lies almost entirely in the fantasy realm. If you want magic to only work on tuesdays hey It might sound weird but magic is suppose to be weird and occult and hard to understand.

[Gloom]

If I were going to think about potentially changing the stat linked to Resonance I'd be much more likely to simplify things and make it:

3 + Character Level = Resonance

That way at least everyone is on the same playing field when it comes to potential.

[WatersLethe]

I made a rough idea about how I'd like to remove it in another thread. It boiled down to only Alchemists having an appropriately sized resonance pool, going back to item slots and freely usable consumables. Items that take resonance to use an ability instead get it once per day, and you can make a UMD check to try to squeeze more uses out of individual items, but you can only do that a limited number of times a day.

The simplest option, in my opinion, is to do something like Gloom said.

Give an upfront boost to resonance to clear the low level squeeze, then hopefully it never becomes an issue again.

[Cantriped]

I like the idea of self-powered items with a limited number of free uses (1 to 3 per day), and the ability to make Charisma checks to eek a little more magic out of the item, with critical failure 'burning-out' the item for the day.

[KingOfAnything]

graystone wrote:

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:

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.

How about magical encumbrance, rather than tolerance? You wouldn't use Constitution for your mundane carrying capacity, nor Wisdom for magical capacity.

[Crayon]

Meh, the old UMD was Charisma-based too. No different really.

Probably related to innate magical potential like how Sorcerers cast spells.

[Malk_Content]

Gloom wrote:

If I were going to think about potentially changing the stat linked to Resonance I'd be much more likely to simplify things and make it:

3 + Character Level = Resonance

That way at least everyone is on the same playing field when it comes to potential.

I dislike this because it moves Charisma back to that stat with 0 mechanical weight. I don't know why its fine for every other stat but as soon as having low charisma might be a slight negative it needs removing.

[Stone Dog]

KingOfAnything wrote:

How about magical encumbrance, rather than tolerance? You wouldn't use Constitution for your mundane carrying capacity, nor Wisdom for magical capacity.

That is pretty clever, really. You could use your full Cha stat to determine how much magic your aura can fuel before you start feeling the strain of it.

[graystone]

Matthew Downie wrote:

Charisma for Resonance is equally nonsensical, but it's consistent with the past, and helps to balance out a stat that is otherwise mechanically weak for most classes.

I think you might have missed the start of this: someone said it MADE sense if you thought of it as tolerance and I disagreed. That's what the debate is/was. Then someone else tried to have it make sense by linking it to something in the past. THAT IMO at least has a slight link to the past but is IMO isn't greatly more sensical.

Crayon wrote:

Meh, the old UMD was Charisma-based too. No different really.

For me, this doesn't track as the skill was how to NOT use items as they were meant which is exactly the opposite of resonance [how many items you can use as they are meant].

KingOfAnything wrote:

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.

[graystone]

Vidmaster7 wrote:

Its really the thing about magic really you can kind of define it however you want cause it lies almost entirely in the fantasy realm. If you want magic to only work on tuesdays hey It might sound weird but magic is suppose to be weird and occult and hard to understand.

Well that's all true but there are limits. When you are continuing a setting into a new version and say all the old lore works, then what you've defined for magic has already been defined. It's hard to say both 'it's magic so it doesn't have to make sense' and 'nothing changes in setting info so you can use your old knowledge and use your old books.'. Fantasy should have an internal consistency even if it hinges on the nonsensical.

[ErichAD]

Malk_Content wrote:

Gloom wrote:

If I were going to think about potentially changing the stat linked to Resonance I'd be much more likely to simplify things and make it:

3 + Character Level = Resonance

That way at least everyone is on the same playing field when it comes to potential.

I dislike this because it moves Charisma back to that stat with 0 mechanical weight. I don't know why its fine for every other stat but as soon as having low charisma might be a slight negative it needs removing.

Giving charisma a benefit that diverges this much from its core purpose is going to make it harder to address the abandoning of social activities as the stat is being artificially propped up.

If the stat has "0 mechanical weight", wouldn't it make more sense to remove it rather than shoehorn purpose into it?

[Vidmaster7]

First I am plenty sensical! (is sensical a word? I've only ever heard nonsensical used)

A few ways charisma can be magically linked.

You can look at charisma as force of personality your using that force to manipulate magic.

Magic is granted by gods and gods favor the charismatic people just lik real people do.

There is more to charisma then just being easily liked.

Even reality responds to your charms!

maybe magic likes friendly people?

Also dragons use charisma for there magic and they did it first so I say take it up with them! I'll write you a lovely send off on your memorial (Questions dragons) (IF its not obvious this one was a joke then I don't know what to tell you.)

[graystone]

Vidmaster7 wrote:

(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.

Vidmaster7 wrote:

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.

[Vidmaster7]

graystone wrote:

Vidmaster7 wrote:

(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.

Vidmaster7 wrote:

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.

Don't think i didn't see you sidestep that confirming I was sensical or not >.>

[Malk_Content]

ErichAD wrote:

Malk_Content wrote:

Gloom wrote:

If I were going to think about potentially changing the stat linked to Resonance I'd be much more likely to simplify things and make it:

3 + Character Level = Resonance

That way at least everyone is on the same playing field when it comes to potential.

I dislike this because it moves Charisma back to that stat with 0 mechanical weight. I don't know why its fine for every other stat but as soon as having low charisma might be a slight negative it needs removing.

Giving charisma a benefit that diverges this much from its core purpose is going to make it harder to address the abandoning of social activities as the stat is being artificially propped up.

If the stat has "0 mechanical weight", wouldn't it make more sense to remove it rather than shoehorn purpose into it?

I don't see how its any different from "shoehorning" the non skill parts of other attributes. Is anyone complaining that in order to not be Dominated easily you also incidentally are a bit better at knowing stuff about Nature or spotting the spots on a leopard?

Everything is arbitrary to some degree, deciding that Charisma is the only time when this is a problem kinda proves my point.