| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF1 Standard: Health loss in battle is meaningless post-combat. If you want it to matter, you need to houserule shit.
PF2 Standard: Health loss in battle is meaningful post-combat. If you want it not to matter, you need to houserule shit.
I'll take the latter, if you want to remove an aspect from the game (as people have done away with encumbrance, wilderness rules, etc.), that's easy to pull off.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF1 Standard: Health loss in battle is meaningless post-combat. If you want it to matter, you need to houserule s!!~
Incorrect. For PF1E, all loot distribution or acquisition is within the purview of the GM. No house-ruling required to make health recovery post-combat "meaningful", if item based healing is a problem for you.
Furthermore, in PF1E my group's experience was that careful portioning of wand usage is important, and were HIGHLY encouraged to avoid taking damage during combat because of the limited nature of wand charges. If you're handing out wands willy nilly that's a GM problem, not a wand problem.
I'm also joining in as yet another person who enjoyed CLW wands in PF1e and don't consider it a problem. So please avoid speaking in absolutes when personal opinion is involved.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF1 Standard: Health loss in battle is meaningless post-combat. If you want it to matter, you need to houserule s!!~Incorrect. For PF1E, all loot distribution or acquisition is within the purview of the GM. No house-ruling required to make health recovery post-combat "meaningful", if item based healing is a problem for you.
Furthermore, in PF1E my group's experience was that careful portioning of wand usage is important, and were HIGHLY encouraged to avoid taking damage during combat because of the limited nature of wand charges. If you're handing out wands willy nilly that's a GM problem, not a wand problem.
I'm also joining in as yet another person who enjoyed CLW wands in PF1e and don't consider it a problem. So please avoid speaking in absolutes when personal opinion is involved.
Actually certain town levels have magic items of a certain cost 75% of the time. The level for a cure light wounds wand would be a "small town". Meaning if you want your players to never use a cure light wounds wand when they want to purchase one, it would absolutely be house ruling to stop them from getting it.
Not to mention that if they took the craft wands feat, they could craft them. Are you saying that a GM disallowing someone from crafting a certain wand isn't houseruling?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PF1 Standard: Health loss in battle is meaningless post-combat. If you want it to matter, you need to houserule s!!~Incorrect. For PF1E, all loot distribution or acquisition is within the purview of the GM. No house-ruling required to make health recovery post-combat "meaningful", if item based healing is a problem for you.
Furthermore, in PF1E my group's experience was that careful portioning of wand usage is important, and were HIGHLY encouraged to avoid taking damage during combat because of the limited nature of wand charges. If you're handing out wands willy nilly that's a GM problem, not a wand problem.
I'm also joining in as yet another person who enjoyed CLW wands in PF1e and don't consider it a problem. So please avoid speaking in absolutes when personal opinion is involved.
lol this is what's written in the CRB, not a personal thing
it's like saying fighter damage sucks because your gm could only allow daggers
So, what happens when a player marches into town, throws down 10k gold and says "I want 200 light wagons. Now."
You just give it to them because the rules say they're available?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not to mention that if they took the craft wands feat, they could craft them. Are you saying that a GM disallowing someone from crafting a certain wand isn't houseruling?
1. It takes a full day and the requisite conditions to craft a wand.
2. Players spending their precious feats on wand crafting should be suitably rewarded.
3. Yes, it would be a houserule to remove crafting if you found it necessary. See PFS.
So, what happens when a player marches into town, throws down 10k gold and says "I want 200 light wagons. Now."
You just give it to them because the rules say they're available?
Of course not. but realistically the CLW wand is so broken you only really need 1 at at a time at lower levels to heal fully between combat. Move up to 2 or 3 at higher levels. and refill whenever you run low at town. Definitely don't need 200 of them.
I don't understand why pro CLW spammers get so defensive when told they should just house rule full hp between encounters. Are you the player in your games so you don't have the authority, or do you think your players would actually rather play with injuries being a legitimate threat, and not every encounter being a waste of time unless it's designed specifically to TPK you?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
First, to address your point about automatic full heals:
I am the GM in one game and I've been the player in several. In each, we have the option of buying a wand, but never a ton at once, and crafting is on the table. In all the games we play, wands are treated as a precious resource and ticking down toward empty is a perilous endeavor. In what way does that equate to free full healing between combats? Spending wand charges is to be avoided, because they're not free, which incentivizes taking less damage.
Also, at level 1 you can't easily afford a full wand, at level 2 it's a significant investment, at level 3 it's expected that the group has bought a full wand if they had the chance. Keeping in mind, that the first 4 levels could potentially go by within the course of one dungeon dive without shops.
At high levels I am 100% A-Okay with healing between combats being a trivial gold problem, but I still prefer there to be at least that token cost. It's the same reason I'm okay with planar travel being a big deal at low levels but just another tuesday at high levels.
Now, to further address the argument that people's hands are tied because of the rules in PF1e and have to give out wands like candy:
Magic items are valuable, and most major cities have at least one or two purveyors of magic items, from a simple potion merchant to a weapon smith that specializes in magic swords. Of course, not every item in this book is available in every town.
The following guidelines are presented to help GMs determine what items are available in a given community. These guidelines assume a setting with an average level of magic. Some cities might deviate wildly from these baselines, subject to GM discretion. The GM should keep a list of what items are available from each merchant and should replenish the stocks on occasion to represent new acquisitions.
The number and types of magic items available in a community depend upon its size. Each community has a base value associated with it (see Table: Available Magic Items). There is a 75% chance that any item of that value or lower can be found for sale with little effort in that community. In addition, the community has a number of other items for sale. These items are randomly determined and are broken down by category (minor, medium, or major). After determining the number of items available in each category, refer to Table: Random Magic Item Generation to determine the type of each item (potion, scroll, ring, weapon, etc.) before moving on to the individual charts to determine the exact item. Reroll any items that fall below the community's base value.
If you are running a campaign with low magic, reduce the base value and the number of items in each community by half. Campaigns with little or no magic might not have magic items for sale at all. GMs running these sorts of campaigns should make some adjustments to the challenges faced by the characters due to their lack of magic gear.
Campaigns with an abundance of magic items might have communities with twice the listed base value and random items available. Alternatively, all communities might count as one size category larger for the purposes of what items are available. In a campaign with very common magic, all magic items might be available for purchase in a metropolis.
Nonmagical items and gear are generally available in a community of any size unless the item is particularly expensive, such as full plate, or made of an unusual material, such as an adamantine longsword. These items should follow the base value guidelines to determine their availability, subject to GM discretion.
Emphasis mine.
The rules go out of their way to expound upon the notion that all purchasing is firmly within the GM's discretion, and complaining that you *must* give your players wands if they want to buy them is akin to arguing that playing in a low magic setting is house ruling.
There's a difference between house ruling and straight up normal, every day GMing.
yo bro i wrote an answer but got deleted in the forum crash
basically my point is what the hell is that you are arguing
because your position seems to be "your design preferences are emotional, personal decisions", whereas it seems pretty clear to me they are DESIGN PREFERENCES – that is, decisions chosen with a cost-weight benefit to obtain a desired result.
so we go back to this:
PF1 Standard: Health loss in battle is meaningless post-combat. If you want it to matter, you need to houserule s$%~.
PF2 Standard: Health loss in battle is meaningful post-combat. If you want it not to matter, you need to houserule s+@%.
In PF1, health loss in battle is meaningless post-combat. you need to actively GM against it to change that.
In PF2, there's a conscious decision to make healing spells and effects more powerful and meaningful. This is two pronged – they are stronger and they are less available.
Of course this has ramifications.
But any other choice will also have ramifications.
In the end, your personal experience doesn't matter beyond being a data point. It's a matter of what states the game will create in broad terms beyond your own houseruling and discretion, which is still valid.
So yeah I'm not sure what you are trying to get at beyond the fact that you like CLW wand scumming, which is a personal, emotional decision.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Question: Do you ever actually run out or just get close to it? If its the latter then that is merely the illusion of a precious resource.First, to address your point about automatic full heals:
I am the GM in one game and I've been the player in several. In each, we have the option of buying a wand, but never a ton at once, and crafting is on the table. In all the games we play, wands are treated as a precious resource and ticking down toward empty is a perilous endeavor. In what way does that equate to free full healing between combats? Spending wand charges is to be avoided, because they're not free, which incentivizes taking less damage.
It's happened a handful of times at low levels when we've gotten partially charged wands.
Generally we do our best to avoid letting it happen. Which is an active resource management scheme that people arguing against CLW wands say is desirable.
Illusion of a precious resource sounds a lot like "players didn't run out of resonance during normal play" to me, though.
Also, vasts swaths of GMing is providing effective illusions, so I'm not sure how far that concern really takes you. Assumed wealth by level is an example of the illusion of a resource, for example.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand why pro CLW spammers get so defensive when told they should just house rule full hp between encounters.
Try turning that around and looking at it from our perspective. Why are anti CLW spammers SO "defensive when told they should just house rule [out] full hp between encounters"? Anyone is going to complain when their playstyle isn't supported by the rules. Worse, it USED to support both but the new system doesn't support one style: DM's have FULL control over treasure and availability of items so CLW wands are only as available as the DM allows as the suggestions of availability are just that, suggestions.
Are you the player in your games so you don't have the authority
I'm mostly the player but why should I jump right to that as we're in the PLAYTEST. My effort is going to be in the reformation of the rules to conform more to my expectations of the game and my game style. Why would I go in already throwing in the towel after being told by the dev's that nothing is written in stone yet.
do you think your players would actually rather play with injuries being a legitimate threat, and not every encounter being a waste of time unless it's designed specifically to TPK you?
I'd rather I have the tools to make these kind of decisions as a DM instead of the game forcing one way on me as a DM: I'd rather the game NOT make me houserule.
Question: Do you ever actually run out or just get close to it?
I can only speak for myself, but YES. The DM isn't required to have a vending machine with wands of CLW every 10' or allow every town to have them or create a game with so much downtime that wands can be mass produced. If the DM allows CLW to be everyday items, he loses the right to complain that they are commonplace.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In PF1, health loss in battle is meaningless post-combat. you need to actively GM against it to change that.
In PF2, there's a conscious decision to make healing spells and effects more powerful and meaningful. This is two pronged – they are stronger and they are less available.
Of course this has ramifications.
But any other choice will also have ramifications.
In the end, your personal experience doesn't matter beyond being a data point. It's a matter of what states the game will create in broad terms beyond your own houseruling and discretion, which is still valid.
So yeah I'm not sure what you are trying to get at beyond the fact that you like CLW wand scumming, which is a personal, emotional decision.
PF2 is making a change to healing based on one opinion about healing in PF1. I'm chiming in to say "Hey, the basis for that change might not be valid"
Health loss in battle is *not* meaningless post-combat, based on my experience. So don't state it like a fact.
To address your comment "actively GM against it", I'd like to point out that GMing isn't cracking a book and reading it line by line. GMing is *always* active, and you adjust the setting, pacing, and feel of the game to hopefully maximize player fun and engagement.
PF1 has CLW wand availability as a knob to turn to make out of combat healing easier or harder, all within the baseline rules.
PF2 is saying "Using cheap wands is badwrong and you must change either resonance or item costs to make changes to out of combat healing"
In PF1, health loss in battle is meaningless post-combat. you need to actively GM against it to change that.
In PF2, there's a conscious decision to make healing spells and effects more powerful and meaningful. This is two pronged – they are stronger and they are less available.
Of course this has ramifications.
But any other choice will also have ramifications.
In the end, your personal experience doesn't matter beyond being a data point. It's a matter of what states the game will create in broad terms beyond your own houseruling and discretion, which is still valid.
So yeah I'm not sure what you are trying to get at beyond the fact that you like CLW wand scumming, which is a personal, emotional decision.
PF2 is making a change to healing based on one opinion about healing in PF1. I'm chiming in to say "Hey, the basis for that change might not be valid"
Health loss in battle is *not* meaningless post-combat, based on my experience. So don't state it like a fact.
To address your comment "actively GM against it", I'd like to point out that GMing isn't cracking a book and reading it line by line. GMing is *always* active, and you adjust the setting, pacing, and feel of the game to hopefully maximize player fun and engagement.
PF1 has CLW wand availability as a knob to turn to make out of combat healing easier or harder, all within the baseline rules.
PF2 is saying "Using cheap wands is badwrong and you must change either resonance or item costs to make changes to out of combat healing"
PF2 still has a knob – it's called GM fiat.
PF2 wants to have easier time planning out encounters, campaigns, etc. To do this, item economy needs a regulation.
It's not a single opinion – it's a myriad of problems that are fixed with this.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thats zooming in on one issue. Resonance isn't trying to tell you bad wrongfun at all, or if it is, that is the smallest reason for its existence. It does multiple things.In PF1, health loss in battle is meaningless post-combat. you need to actively GM against it to change that.
In PF2, there's a conscious decision to make healing spells and effects more powerful and meaningful. This is two pronged – they are stronger and they are less available.
Of course this has ramifications.
But any other choice will also have ramifications.
In the end, your personal experience doesn't matter beyond being a data point. It's a matter of what states the game will create in broad terms beyond your own houseruling and discretion, which is still valid.
So yeah I'm not sure what you are trying to get at beyond the fact that you like CLW wand scumming, which is a personal, emotional decision.
PF2 is making a change to healing based on one opinion about healing in PF1. I'm chiming in to say "Hey, the basis for that change might not be valid"
Health loss in battle is *not* meaningless post-combat, based on my experience. So don't state it like a fact.
To address your comment "actively GM against it", I'd like to point out that GMing isn't cracking a book and reading it line by line. GMing is *always* active, and you adjust the setting, pacing, and feel of the game to hopefully maximize player fun and engagement.
PF1 has CLW wand availability as a knob to turn to make out of combat healing easier or harder, all within the baseline rules.
PF2 is saying "Using cheap wands is badwrong and you must change either resonance or item costs to make changes to out of combat healing"
It's exactly why it sucks...if it concentrated on just one thing maybe it wouldn't be so grating.
Why are magic items fundamentally different from other resources. Why aren't you complaining that in PF1 and PF2 you can't blow all your spellslots and then still be ready for the boss fight?
Because balancing offensive and utility resources is fun. Keeping one's character just alive, not so much. It's similar to not wanting a mandatory cleric in the party.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why are magic items fundamentally different from other resources. Why aren't you complaining that in PF1 and PF2 you can't blow all your spellslots and then still be ready for the boss fight?
To me, magic items represent an inherently external resource. They are for when your innate abilities aren't enough. They're things like the Phial of Galadriel.
A system by which I am blocked from using my stockpile of hard earned tricks and magical boosts when I really need them is viscerally unsatisfying.
Unsatisfying example 1:
"Well, we made it to the base of the tower, it was grueling task getting this far but now let's all drink our flight potions and take the wizard by surprise!"
"Uh, sorry, I used too many wand charges after that last battle with the orcs, you guys go on without me."
Unsatisfying example 2:
"The cleric is down, the fighter is busy grappling the hellhound, and the boss is bearing down on you. What do you do?"
"Wait, do you still have that orb of destruction?"
*General table excitement*
"Okay, I throw the orb at him!... oh wait nevermind I'm out of Resonance."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry, but Resonance is awful.
You are kinder than I. IMO, it has to work it's way up to awful... :P
Why are magic items fundamentally different from other resources.
Why should ALL resources be treated exactly the same and who decided that every group has to treat each and everything as a resource?
Why aren't you complaining
Why aren't you complaining that mundane ammo food, water and component tracking isn't more meaningful? Why isn't the nail biting excitement of using your last live spider something you're championing?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oberoni for thee, but nor for me!
Why are magic items fundamentally different from other resources. Why aren't you complaining that in PF1 and PF2 you can't blow all your spellslots and then still be ready for the boss fight?To me, magic items represent an inherently external resource. They are for when your innate abilities aren't enough. They're things like the Phial of Galadriel.
A system by which I am blocked from using my stockpile of hard earned tricks and magical boosts when I really need them is viscerally unsatisfying.
Unsatisfying example 1:
"Well, we made it to the base of the tower, it was grueling task getting this far but now let's all drink our flight potions and take the wizard by surprise!"
"Uh, sorry, I used too many wand charges after that last battle with the orcs, you guys go on without me."
Unsatisfying example 2:
"The cleric is down, the fighter is busy grappling the hellhound, and the boss is bearing down on you. What do you do?"
"Wait, do you still have that orb of destruction?"
*General table excitement*
"Okay, I throw the orb at him!... oh wait nevermind I'm out of Resonance."
How the hell are you running out of resonance that fast going through mooks, you apes?
You are fighting a boss and a hellhound, which are assumedly a CR5 enemy and a CR3 enemy, so you are basically tossing them a CR6 encounter – what are they, level 1?
Even a 3rd level party should have basically 9 points of resonance combined among 3 players with no Charisma bonus.
I mean, I can come up with totally meaningless examples of no resonance being a let down as well.
Why aren't you complainingWhy aren't you complaining that mundane ammo food, water and component tracking isn't more meaningful? Why isn't the nail biting excitement of using your last live spider something you're championing?
Obviously, because it doesn't massively affect encounter difficulty, and is otherwise tracked in wilderness campaigns and elsewhere where it might matter.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF2 still has a knob – it's called GM fiat.PF2 wants to have easier time planning out encounters, campaigns, etc. To do this, item economy needs a regulation.
It's not a single opinion – it's a myriad of problems that are fixed with this.
A myriad of other people's problems, which I have yet to experience are fixed with a system that looks to introduce far more problems than I had with the previous system.
It is not cut and dry, and I'm not going to be quiet about my experiences, and I would appreciate it if people didn't treat problems we can't even agree on as solid reasons for making design decisions.
1. CLW wands weren't a problem for me, I liked them.
2. Item slots weren't a problem for me, I prefer them. Also, Resonance doesn't remove item slots.
3. I never had an issue tracking uses and charges, I think it's a higher cognitive load to think about all the possible current and future uses of Resonance every time I use it.
4. I don't have a problem with high level characters using low level consumables, and I think discouraging that is videogamey.
5. Resonance is item level in disguise, and mechanically blocks interesting modes of play that PF1 would have simply discouraged.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I fear that if a party used to full healing out of combat suddenly looses their access to wands of CLW then we will see the return of the 15 minute adventuring day (which is worse, because then not only are they going back to full hit points after every combat but also full spells, powers, ect). Once you hit CLW, you have to hit the ability of players to retreat, or put the players on a clock. Both of these options force players to burn recourses but at the same time become annoying and/or start to break suspension of disbelief after a while. Furthermore, in this scenario, from a DM perspective it may be easy to budget player recourses but from a player perspective it can be very difficult. If you don't know the number or nature of the upcoming encounters how can you be expected to budget enough healing resources for the next battle? This may be easy in video games where you can learn a levels design, die, then breeze through it the second time around, but in an action rpg I don't like the "oh, we guessed there were three encounters before we got to a place we could rest, but surprise, there were actually 5 so we ran out of healing and died."
Also as a DM, you always have to account for players making a mistake, this means I have to assume that, at least occasionally players will budget their recourses incorrectly and will go into an encounter with low hp, or that because of limited resource mechanics my players will never go into any encounter past the first without full hp. This not only makes encounters difficult to balance but also shifts the focus of early encounters from "lets kill the monsters without losing too much hp" to "let's be super cautious and lose as few hp as possible". I personally would be less likely to take risks and try cool things if I new that my true enemy wasn't encounters that would challenge my character at their prime but would instead whittle away my hp so that I would die in a later encounter.
It's not a single opinion – it's a myriad of problems that are fixed with this.
You say this, I say 'it's a myriad of problems that are created in an effort to fix something that was never an issue in the first place...'.
PF2 still has a knob – it's called GM fiat.
If this is true, then you don't need resonance to allow you to limit healing do you?
Obviously, because it doesn't massively affect encounter difficulty, and is otherwise tracked in wilderness campaigns and elsewhere where it might matter.
Why aren't you complainingWhy aren't you complaining that mundane ammo food, water and component tracking isn't more meaningful? Why isn't the nail biting excitement of using your last live spider something you're championing?
So not having ammo for your ranged weapons or food to eat or water to drink or the ability to cast spells has no effect on encounters? You play a different game than I it seems. Last time I looked, losing the ability to cast spells was a big deal. Starvation and thirst deal damage.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is not cut and dry, and I'm not going to be quiet about my experiences, and I would appreciate it if people didn't treat problems we can't even agree on as solid reasons for making design decisions.
This is a solipsistic point of view. Expertise exists – and personal experiences have no basis in it.
Paizo has market research, developers, designers, playtesting, etc.
If you believe unanimous consensus needs to be achieved to make decisions, that's a dangerous position to have in life in general.
As for your points:
1. CLW wands are extremely tedious and immersion-breaking to me, imagining heroes spending their time slapping each other with wands before moving onto the next room is among the worst issues in Pathfinder to me.
2. Item slots are terrible to me. I like Monks. Amulets fighting against each other, getting locked out of good choices due to needing the magic item economy to stay in ground footing with the game difficulty.
3. Tracking uses and charges is fine. I love tracking mundane resources too, because I love scarcity campaigns where food, water and tools matter. Tracking Resonance should be easy enough to add.
4. I have a problem with high level characters using low level consumables. It's too metagamey to allow it, and it also feels extremely bad when your Monk spurns Bracers of Armor +3 because scumming Mage Armor on a wand is better until, like, level 13 or something. I'd rather have better items be better than lower level items.
5. Resonance checks wealth-by-level and item bonanzas, and allows characters to feel like all the gold in the world wouldn't still allow them to trivially deal with threats, and that their heroics are more important.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Graystone
Not everything has to be treated as a resource by every group. The game has to make a base assumption is all. I'd rather that base assumption doesn't lead to adventure writers having to constantly escalate combats to make a dent. Other tables can change anything of course. Although apparently having these different options spelled out in the book is a bad idea, so my natural inclination towards compromise isn't liked by the community.
The issue with that base assumption for writers is there is no real way to gauge how much atrition a group will have before it meets encounters 1, b or c as a lucky crit or a smart thought may leave the party drastically higher of lower than expected leaving the parry with either an unsatisfying stompfest or a smackdown from the enemy. It's much easier to plan for full hp than a variable amount of unknown size.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As for your unsatisfying example I see them as satisfying through a different frame of reference.Example 1: "We've got to save ourselves for the wizard guys, these Orcs are going to hurt but we MUST keep something in reserve."
Example 2: Climatic battle at the end of the campaign? last ditch attempt, with a 55% chance of working! That is way more exciting than the item just winning the battle!
I should have specified personally unsatisfying.
I just cannot take seriously a system where you have to avoid using your potion of cure disease, packed specifically for one scenario, so that you can use another item for another specific scenario. I only foresee people going "Well, heck it, I'll pack 10 of the most generally useful items and forget everything else."
Also, a 55% chance of being able to make the attempt at all. That's not satisfying to me. That's as maddening as spells fizzling in Ultima Online. It is just not for me.
How the hell are you running out of resonance that fast going through mooks, you apes?
You are fighting a boss and a hellhound, which are assumedly a CR5 enemy and a CR3 enemy, so you are basically tossing them a CR6 encounter – what are they, level 1?
Even a 3rd level party should have basically 9 points of resonance combined among 3 players with no Charisma bonus.
I mean, I can come up with totally meaningless examples of no resonance being a let down as well.
I am intentionally using vague situations because I have no idea what an appropriate CR encounter looks like for a PF2 party. I just know what kinds of stories I want to be able to tell, and what kind of feel I want out of the system. Those examples are entirely possible based on what I've read.
I've been saying all along, if people *literally never* run out of Resonance then whatever, but the second it does come up I'm not going to be a happy camper.
Some people might like the concept of scrimping on potions now to use your lightstep boots in an hour, but personally I want nothing to do with that.
I fear that if a party used to full healing out of combat suddenly looses their access to wands of CLW then we will see the return of the 15 minute adventuring day (which is worse, because then not only are they going back to full hit points after every combat but also full spells, powers, ect).
This is a concern of mine too.
I do hope there is enough incentive to push through somehow. For example, short rests granting some resonance back.
It's not a single opinion – it's a myriad of problems that are fixed with this.You say this, I say 'it's a myriad of problems that are created in an effort to fix something that was never an issue in the first place...'.
PF2 still has a knob – it's called GM fiat.If this is true, then you don't need resonance to allow you to limit healing do you?
So not having ammo for your ranged weapons or food to eat or water to drink or the ability to cast spells has no effect on encounters? You play a different game than I it seems. Last time I looked, losing the ability to cast spells was a big deal. Starvation and thirst deal damage.Obviously, because it doesn't massively affect encounter difficulty, and is otherwise tracked in wilderness campaigns and elsewhere where it might matter.
Why aren't you complainingWhy aren't you complaining that mundane ammo food, water and component tracking isn't more meaningful? Why isn't the nail biting excitement of using your last live spider something you're championing?
The answer to all this is the same – the base game needs to take a position on all these issues, and after more than a decade of 3.P, I think we have more than personal anecdotal information to take an informed choice.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is a solipsistic point of view. Expertise exists – and personal experiences have no basis in it.Paizo has market research, developers, designers, playtesting, etc.
If you believe unanimous consensus needs to be achieved to make decisions, that's a dangerous position to have in life in general.
In the end, I can't convince them to change their minds about the direction of their game. None of us can.
What I can do is provide my opinion about their decisions in the forum made specifically for me and others to do so.
It seems like you've been trying to say "Since the developers made this decision, the problems it purports to solve must be a concern for a large majority of players"
That might be true, but we don't know what data they're using, so it's silly to assume it's a waste of my time to report my personal experiences which run counter to their conclusions.
Edit: Especially since my voice might help them make slight changes to their design that ends up being better for everyone.
This is a solipsistic point of view. Expertise exists – and personal experiences have no basis in it.Paizo has market research, developers, designers, playtesting, etc.
If you believe unanimous consensus needs to be achieved to make decisions, that's a dangerous position to have in life in general.
In the end, I can't convince them to change their minds about the direction of their game. None of us can.
What I can do is provide my opinion about their decisions in the forum made specifically for me and others to do so.
It seems like you've been trying to say "Since the developers made this decision, the problems it purports to solve must be a concern for a large majority of players"
That might be true, but we don't know what data they're using, so it's silly to assume it's a waste of my time to report my personal experiences which run counter to their conclusions.
Edit: Especially since my voice might help them make slight changes to their design that ends up being better for everyone.
Can't argue with any of this. I'm glad you see that full consensus isn't a necessity in this argument, though.
The thing is, Until March 2018, it wasn't a problem.
I did a search on these boards for people complaining about "Wand of CLW spam". Prior to March 2018, there were around 60 posts.
Of them, only two claimed that it was a bad thing. And one of them was saying that CLW spam was an issue when combined with a homebrew suggestion of "casting from hitpoints".
In ten years, one person brought it up. Congratulations Liegence!
Many other posts were instead indicating how it made the cleric non-mandatory and interesting to play.
Just because it was an automatically acknowledged thing doesn't mean it wasn't a problem. By the same token, I can congratulate wands of mage armor for removing the need to actually have Bracers of Armor, but that doesn't mean that it's good for the game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is, Until March 2018, it wasn't a problem.
I did a search on these boards for people complaining about "Wand of CLW spam". Prior to March 2018, there were around 60 posts.
Of them, only two claimed that it was a bad thing. And one of them was saying that CLW spam was an issue when combined with a homebrew suggestion of "casting from hitpoints".
In ten years, one person brought it up. Congratulations Liegence!
Many other posts were instead indicating how it made the cleric non-mandatory and interesting to play.
For 10+ years I've known that Wands of Mage Armor are better than Bracers of Armor for Monks.
I've recommended anyone who's asked to use the Wands.
But, for all this time, I've begrudged it. Why wouldn't my Monk seek more powerful items?
Why am I a bad player for trying to aim for power over exploiting a low level item?
Why am I a bad player for taking the intuitive Amulet of Mighty Fists when the economical answer is permanency magic fang effects, administered by a series of NPC Wizards, just because the alternative is a) more expensive and b) f#@$s me up with magic item slots?
I'm glad it got changed. I'm happy for resonance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The search function on this board is also borked. I wouldn't use "I did a search of this board" as proof of anything.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm glad it got changed. I'm happy for resonance.
Statistically, someone had to be...
/tongue in cheek
More seriously, I don't think that resonance is the right solution (assuming for a moment a solution is in fact required - which I don't accept). Changing the prices so that bracers of armour, an amulet of mighty fists or any of a hundred other higher level items were actually priced competitively. They are adding levels to everything so can gate items that way if the fear is items being available at too low a level.
There are more palatable answers than resonance for those of us who don't share your frustrations with PF1.
I'm glad it got changed. I'm happy for resonance.
Statistically, someone had to be...
/tongue in cheek
More seriously, I don't think that resonance is the right solution (assuming for a moment a solution is in fact required - which I don't accept). Changing the prices so that bracers of armour, an amulet of mighty fists or any of a hundred other higher level items were actually priced competitively. They are adding levels to everything so can gate items that way if the fear is items being available at too low a level.
There are more palatable answers than resonance for those of us who don't share your frustrations with PF1.
I was just citing a scenario in which no-resonance-economy was a pain yet I enthusiastically recommended exploiting it for the longest time.
The other things resonance changes are pretty great to me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm glad it got changed. I'm happy for resonance.
Statistically, someone had to be...
/tongue in cheek
There's always one in every crowd. ;)
More seriously, I don't think that resonance is the right solution (assuming for a moment a solution is in fact required - which I don't accept).
Resonance might be workable as a replacement for slots. OR it might work to replace charges. OR getting rid of 1/day uses. But we STILL have charges and slots and per day uses and worse they all link to a single resource... :P
IMO, it seems to hit potions the worst as no one complains about those darn potions but they get hit in the collateral damage of trying to collect far too many things under one resource pool.
OK quick question. Once you are out of Resonence and you are making the roll to activate.
When the roll fails what happens?
is it
I can no longer activate any items today?
That item can no longer be activated by anyone today?
or
I can no longer activate that particular item today?
OK quick question. Once you are out of Resonence and you are making the roll to activate.
When the roll fails what happens?
is it
I can no longer activate any items today?
That item can no longer be activated by anyone today?
or
I can no longer activate that particular item today?
I believe it's
Success- the item works, the DC for this roll increases by 1Failure- the item does not work
Critical Failure- the item does not work, and you cannot attempt to use resonance activated items for the remainder of the day.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe it's
Success- the item works, the DC for this roll increases by 1
Failure- the item does not work
Critical Failure- the item does not work, and you cannot attempt to use resonance activated items for the remainder of the day.
Which is fairly generous, all things considered, except for things that are consumed on a failure, like potions.
I'm not sure if wand charges or scrolls were, though.
I believe it's
Success- the item works, the DC for this roll increases by 1
Failure- the item does not work
Critical Failure- the item does not work, and you cannot attempt to use resonance activated items for the remainder of the day.
Which is fairly generous, all things considered, except for things that are consumed on a failure, like potions.
I'm not sure if wand charges or scrolls were, though.
It would be a pretty easy change to make nothing consumed on a failure, say the proper way to administer a potion is drinking it slowly at first so as to not shock your system, so if you cough and choke on the first sip (because you fail the roll) the bulk of it is still in the bottle.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I believe it's
Success- the item works, the DC for this roll increases by 1
Failure- the item does not work
Critical Failure- the item does not work, and you cannot attempt to use resonance activated items for the remainder of the day.
Which is fairly generous, all things considered, except for things that are consumed on a failure, like potions.
I'm not sure if wand charges or scrolls were, though.
I'd say they are. There's nothing to suggest otherwise. A consumable is a consumable is a consumable. There's no UMD rules that say no charges are lost by failing the check, so that means failing Resonance checks still burn through Wand charges and Scrolls.
@ nicholas storm: Because Developers have never been wrong or lopsided before. Don't forget, before PF2, C/MD didn't exist and wasn't acknowledged by the developers, so if you want to be really honest here, Resonance isn't really an appropriate presentation of what the developers originally viewed to be a non-existent issue.
But you're also ignoring one major issue with their playtest: It entirely depends on how it's played and the way Resonance is used in game.
People who actively conserve their Resonance by using less magic items or having less magic items won't run out because they are taking efforts to not run out (or even the GM is making sure Resonance is not an issue). This does nothing to properly test how well of a limiter Resonance can be, and really only serves as more needless bookkeeping if that's the case. Worse yet, players feel shoehorned into not using certain items because of their Resonance cost, whereas items that don't have one are much more valued and coveted by said players.
People who simply play the game but don't run out of Resonance can be a result of playstyle, both from the players (who can find non-magical solutions to problems) and the GMs (by not having as many magical-based encounters) not taxing the Resonance system enough to make it a meaningful limiter.
Having no information as to how and why they do not have Resonance issues isn't much of a statement when we have zero knowledge as to what happened in that playtest group outside of a developer comment. Even if it is correct, all this proves is that their table and their playtest means Resonance wasn't a grating issue. So I guess as long as everyone plays like that, Resonance is just fine, right? Right?
Okay people, problem solved, as long as we all play exactly like those playtesters do, Resonance is the best system ever!