Bag of Holding


Magic Items

51 to 100 of 123 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

So, since 2E reduced the penalties and raised the lower limits of carry capacity, Bags of Holding should be considered *more* valuable?

I'm having trouble following that line of thought. Doesn't that mean characters are likely to more frequently shrug at the Bag of Holding and keep their Resonance reserve for flashy stuff since their carry capacity isn't an issue?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:

So, since 2E reduced the penalties and raised the lower limits of carry capacity, Bags of Holding should be considered *more* valuable?

I'm having trouble following that line of thought. Doesn't that mean characters are likely to more frequently shrug at the Bag of Holding and keep their Resonance reserve for flashy stuff since their carry capacity isn't an issue?

Just because you don't NEED one for everyday use doesn't mean you can't WANT it. It IS still useful (how can you rob dragons without one?) but it's no longer an unavoidable expense to actually do stuff.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I also find it interesting that you have to 'draw' your bag to use it so it's impossible to pull something out of a worn bag: "Method of Use held, 2 hands; Bulk 1". Then adding the resonance costs, "Activation Operate Activation", and it's REALLY not user friendly.

I guess it's now meant to only be used to drag loot home after the entire adventure/game session: maybe you're meant to hide your stuff and then dump stuff into it when you camp.

For an item that's meant to make your adventuring easier, it sure tries to make it as hard to use as possible.

O. N. wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:

So, since 2E reduced the penalties and raised the lower limits of carry capacity, Bags of Holding should be considered *more* valuable?

I'm having trouble following that line of thought. Doesn't that mean characters are likely to more frequently shrug at the Bag of Holding and keep their Resonance reserve for flashy stuff since their carry capacity isn't an issue?

Just because you don't NEED one for everyday use doesn't mean you can't WANT it. It IS still useful (how can you rob dragons without one?) but it's no longer an unavoidable expense to actually do stuff.

So it's meant to JUST be a super extensive porter? IMO, it seems easier to just hire some strong peasants: less money and you don't have to pay each one RP... Or a wagon. After all, it's JUST useful for downtime treasure removal. :P


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
O. N. wrote:
Just because you don't NEED one for everyday use doesn't mean you can't WANT it. It IS still useful (how can you rob dragons without one?) but it's no longer an unavoidable expense to actually do stuff.

But some people are arguing it makes it feel more special and magical. It seems more like it won't see any screen time if it's just a way to handwave carrying loot after all the excitement is over.

What's more, if you find it as treasure you go "Well, I'd use Resonance to open it but I'm not encumbered and I might need to heal, so I'll just hang on to it until later." then possibly forget all about it since after killing the boss the GM just says you can take your time to loot the area.

Don't get me wrong, I think even with Resonance a bag of holding will be used, but only in uninteresting situations. Carrying a bunch of mundane tools just in case you need them one day. Expediting looting after the excitement is done. Making a long journey easier.

I just sincerely believe it's laughable to be traveling along, get attacked by bandits and the GM says "You got bread out of the bag of holding earlier, make sure you mark off two Resonance."

EDIT: Oh yeah, I forgot to mention. Since getting attacked during the night is a pretty common fear, it would make sense to keep as much Resonance in reserve as you can in case that happens. Burning through Resonance before bed to open your bag doesn't sound like a good idea to me.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah,the analysis/breakdown doesn't help. It really doesn't change my opinion. It is a utility item that is having it's utility severely restricted. It is competing with a resource that may save your life and that's just not going to happen.

Edited to moderate tone


dragonhunterq wrote:
It is competing with a resource that may save your life and that's just not going to happen.

Well, I imagine that if you found a bag of holding and a dragon's hoard that you couldn't possibly carry out any other way, you'd probably try to pay the resonance.

Using the bag as a way to handwave all carrying capacity issues (as I've sometimes encouraged in my games, for convenience), less so.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If it takes resonance to open a bag, my players would never close it. They'd find a way to keep it open all day.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Raynulf wrote:

As a late-night addendum that is something of a tangent...

It's important to point out that the encumbrance rules are a lot neater and generally more user friendly - a low Strength character can carry their gear without either being in medium load or micromanaging their inventory with relative ease, unlike in PF1. This is a significant improvement.

** spoiler omitted **

In terms of being player-friendly, what Paizo have done with the encumbrance rules is amazing.

it's just that potions need to drop to - from L strictly due to Alchemist (esp in higher levels) making 20+ of them as part of their daily prep, +another 2 for alchemist tools making it 4 bulk with basically "0 equip yet"

unless we want all alchemist to be buff dudes carrying a handcart of supplies just to work.

either way, a vial is less weight normally than an arrow, and 10 arrows are l bulk, while a single vial is l bulk.

it doesnt make sense


graystone wrote:
O. N. wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:

So, since 2E reduced the penalties and raised the lower limits of carry capacity, Bags of Holding should be considered *more* valuable?

I'm having trouble following that line of thought. Doesn't that mean characters are likely to more frequently shrug at the Bag of Holding and keep their Resonance reserve for flashy stuff since their carry capacity isn't an issue?

Just because you don't NEED one for everyday use doesn't mean you can't WANT it. It IS still useful (how can you rob dragons without one?) but it's no longer an unavoidable expense to actually do stuff.
So it's meant to JUST be a super extensive porter? IMO, it seems easier to just hire some strong peasants: less money and you don't have to pay each one RP... Or a wagon. After all, it's JUST useful for downtime treasure removal. :P

@WatersLethe too. I guess part of the disconnect between our views here is that I never considered it anything else BUT a super expensive porter where you put the stuff you don't need everyday. And even if I didn't, I've played too many games with magical inventories for it to feel super magical. In a game with constructs, mind controlling music, curses, aliens, and space-time portals, what is for all purposes a bag a bit bigger on the inside kind of feels more 'duh, obviously it exists' than actually amazing.

Graystone, do consider you actually have to protect and feed these porters though! At least the bag doesn't require maintenace. Also it seems to not explode anymore. :p


O. N. wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:

So, since 2E reduced the penalties and raised the lower limits of carry capacity, Bags of Holding should be considered *more* valuable?

I'm having trouble following that line of thought. Doesn't that mean characters are likely to more frequently shrug at the Bag of Holding and keep their Resonance reserve for flashy stuff since their carry capacity isn't an issue?

Just because you don't NEED one for everyday use doesn't mean you can't WANT it. It IS still useful (how can you rob dragons without one?) but it's no longer an unavoidable expense to actually do stuff.

And what about loading said horde into the bag? You stow all the coin in nonmagical bags, on a small horde, that is probably going to be five or so items, each one requiring a RP to put in. THen when you want to distribute or sell, that's more...


Malikor wrote:
O. N. wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:

So, since 2E reduced the penalties and raised the lower limits of carry capacity, Bags of Holding should be considered *more* valuable?

I'm having trouble following that line of thought. Doesn't that mean characters are likely to more frequently shrug at the Bag of Holding and keep their Resonance reserve for flashy stuff since their carry capacity isn't an issue?

Just because you don't NEED one for everyday use doesn't mean you can't WANT it. It IS still useful (how can you rob dragons without one?) but it's no longer an unavoidable expense to actually do stuff.
And what about loading said horde into the bag? You stow all the coin in nonmagical bags, on a small horde, that is probably going to be five or so items, each one requiring a RP to put in. THen when you want to distribute or sell, that's more...

I reread the item description and the Activation descriptions and, as far as I can tell, you only require the RP to open and then close the bag. It doesn't say you have to pay for each item, only for the ACT of opening.

"If it’s turned inside out, the items inside spill out unharmed, but the bag must be put right before it can be used again."

Meaning many items can pass through the opening, but OPENING it is what costs RP. So, throw hoard in, close, then turn inside out inside of your bank/hideout of choice.

Edit: now, the question is... can you keep it open forever? Rules don't say.


Georg. wrote:

I totally understand you. And yes, spending a resonance point for opening the Bag of Holding may seem a bit much if you just want to throw something into it from the last loot.

But with a bag of holding with no restrictions you are making so many items obsolete. Why the need for a backpack? What is a Belt Puch for? Why use Saddlebags? Satchel? Scroll Case? Water Skin? And so on... The bag of Holding is so great, that you do not need those items anymore.

You have to travel through the desert? Bag of Holding with waterskins in it. Party saved!

You need to drain pasta? Put the pasta with the water into the Bag of Holding and ask for the water to come out. Dinner Saved!

You can fly over an hostile encounter and carpet bombing them by turning your bag inside out. Whole encounter solved with just one point of resonance!

You can do so many great things with a Bag of Holding that You can spend weeks to read all the ideas people came up with it, where they saved the party from certain death, killed the BBEGs, saved Towns...

I think after all it is a small price to pay for a whole party to make use of such a great item.

But as I said, instead of complaining, that it should be free... Improvise, think of something new. Use the other Items listed above. Use Ant Haul. Maybe even a mule... I am sure there are thousands of good ideas you can come up with!

So I think it is not taking away from the game if you have to think twice if you really need to open and close the bag 20x a day. It is adding more to the game since you will use a lot more items than before!

Yes. When changing things to allow the use of new items that we never used before, I fully believe they were really hyped that players would be so happy they'd be moved to tears over..., back packs.

Now I'm one person, but I play Alchemist and Rogue(Yes I play Rogue, fight me). I love having any number of containers, bags, vials, etc on my person because I dislike having ALL my items in 1 bag.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
O. N. wrote:
Graystone, do consider you actually have to protect and feed these porters though! At least the bag doesn't require maintenace. Also it seems to not explode anymore. :p

How is this different than the non-animal companion mounts that the party is expected to have in multiple places?

Look at the humble pack yak in classic pathfinder. Costs 24 gp. a large animal with 27 str and 42hp.
It has a gore +10 (2d6+12) and trample (2d6+12, DC 20) so it can take care of itself. And it takes a single 1st level spell to feed.

The the new game, a 2nd level spell provides food. Purchase pack animal is 20 sp and an Unskilled Hireling is 1sp/day.

O. N. wrote:
I guess part of the disconnect between our views here is that I never considered it anything else BUT a super expensive porter where you put the stuff you don't need everyday.

For me, it ALWAYS seemed magical and I always picked up a minor bag of holding as soon as I could. It was never mainly for treasure removal but for me to have a multitude of options at hand. I could have a tent at night, a portable tub to bathe in. A teapot and waffle iron for breakfast if I wished. I could stick up on fresh food and tasty beverages in town before we leave. I could have an appropriate outfit for the situation. It's an item that grants you the freedom to take and use those situational items that are fun, interesting and sometimes useful that you otherwise could never take.

Being able to do that in it's small package is darn magical. JUST being a magic retrieval system is super mundane porter work.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
O. N. wrote:
Graystone, do consider you actually have to protect and feed these porters though! At least the bag doesn't require maintenace. Also it seems to not explode anymore. :p

How is this different than the non-animal companion mounts that the party is expected to have in multiple places?

Look at the humble pack yak in classic pathfinder. Costs 24 gp. a large animal with 27 str and 42hp.
It has a gore +10 (2d6+12) and trample (2d6+12, DC 20) so it can take care of itself. And it takes a single 1st level spell to feed.

Advantages of a bag of holding over a yak:

The bag of holding doesn't require Handle Animal checks.
The bag of holding is easier to get through a narrow passageway or into the house you're burgling.
The bag of holding doesn't get banned by the GM when it tramples the first boss villain and all his minions to death.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Also unlike yaks bags of holding "don't talk back"


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Regarding the idea of investment instead.
I think that would make a really good Bag of Secrets, as only the investor can open it.


Matthew Downie wrote:
graystone wrote:
O. N. wrote:
Graystone, do consider you actually have to protect and feed these porters though! At least the bag doesn't require maintenace. Also it seems to not explode anymore. :p

How is this different than the non-animal companion mounts that the party is expected to have in multiple places?

Look at the humble pack yak in classic pathfinder. Costs 24 gp. a large animal with 27 str and 42hp.
It has a gore +10 (2d6+12) and trample (2d6+12, DC 20) so it can take care of itself. And it takes a single 1st level spell to feed.

Advantages of a bag of holding over a yak:

The bag of holding doesn't require Handle Animal checks.
The bag of holding is easier to get through a narrow passageway or into the house you're burgling.
The bag of holding doesn't get banned by the GM when it tramples the first boss villain and all his minions to death.

I think you missed the argument: it's been put forth that the ONLY time you ever need to use the bag is to remove lots of loot. As such, most negatives for a pack animal go away as it's ONLY for after adventure treasure removal.

Animal checks? Doesn't matter as the whole team can roll now and there is NO failure listing so it's just spending actions to make a HANDLE AN ANIMAL check until success and then you just use COMMAND AN ANIMAL which doesn't seem to even require a roll. SO this is a non-issue IMO.

Secondly, if you expect your party to have mounts to get anywhere a pack animal falls under the same skill. If it's a huge issue to control one the other is the same.

PS: I also can't imagine that the DC is very high plus domestic animals are treated as a level lower for the DC too.

narrow passageway? As we're in the cleanup part of the adventure in the handwavum part this too isn't much of an issue. There is no reason to bring the animal anymore than you have to take your mounts into the house. It's about getting all the loot home, not ease of use.

DM fiat: *shrug* you can say this about ANY rule element so I don't see how this adds anything. If DM fiat was a reason, then we wouldn't need resonance to 'fix' CLW wands.

Vidmaster7 wrote:
Also unlike yaks bags of holding "don't talk back"

Not much of an issue with the new system. All you have to do is reroll your handle an animal check until you make it. It might not be quick but it costs almost nothing and costs no resonance, both things that could be used to keep you alive.


graystone wrote:
The the new game, a 2nd level spell provides food. Purchase pack animal is 20 sp and an Unskilled Hireling is 1sp/day.

*looks at the trail of dead innocent horses that were just in the wrong place at the wrong time* Yeah... I don't think that's gonna work, at least with my group. Around lvl 4 we just gave up on that, we just felt too bad.

graystone wrote:
Being able to do that in it's small package is darn magical. JUST being a magic retrieval system is super mundane porter work.

But... what you just described is the same thing... ANYWAY, this is obviously very important to you, and I don't care enough, so you do you.

EDIT: Serious question, how did you get a bathtub into a sack, I thought you couldn't do that with big things?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
O. N. wrote:
But... what you just described is the same thing...

For me, it's the difference between an attendant that will hand you whatever item you need and the general laborer that's only task is to take luggage from point A to B.

O. N. wrote:
EDIT: Serious question, how did you get a bathtub into a sack, I thought you couldn't do that with big things?

Collapsible bathtub


graystone wrote:
O. N. wrote:
EDIT: Serious question, how did you get a bathtub into a sack, I thought you couldn't do that with big things?
Collapsible bathtub

Now THAT'S magical; I kinda want one in my house now. Thank you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Also unlike yaks bags of holding "don't talk back"

Or spit.


Malikor wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Also unlike yaks bags of holding "don't talk back"
Or spit.

Or Die from AoE damage. Or charging Giant who's hungry. Or...

Point is most DMs tend to forget to target Bag of Holding and the loss of one, even if it is empty, is a step cost. Hireling/pack animal? Acceptable target.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Frankly, I think that encumbrance should just be done away with.

Paizo have made the decision that the previous method of tracking things was too complicated and because a lot of groups either didn't bother, or used bags of holding as a means of abandoning tracking things, it needed to be simplified.

The problem is that the simplified version, while it means that a standard character never need worry about carrying a normal set of gear, makes no sense when you actually try and do anything outside of that.

My Strength 18 Fighter can't wear a suit of full plate and carry two other suits of full plate that have been bundled up back to the armory unless he takes his longsword off his belt first, but he can wander around naked carrying 149 hatchets without issue.

Just abandon the whole concept and keep the bag of holding as a low level magic item that allows you to override a general rule of "you can carry as much as you like until the GM says you can't".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MerlinCross wrote:

Or Die from AoE damage. Or charging Giant who's hungry. Or...

Point is most DMs tend to forget to target Bag of Holding and the loss of one, even if it is empty, is a step cost. Hireling/pack animal? Acceptable target.

*Shrug* as I said, if non-animal companion mounts are a thing in the game they are in the same boat. If the DM is out for them, the party is walking everywhere: The pack yak in fact is more able to defend itself than normal mounts.

From my personal experience I don't often find DM's stealing familiars, burning spell books, defiling holy symbols or inventing situations where your mounts get eaten [assuming proper hiding/protection/placement].

It really boils down to wanting your party to get from point A to point B: do you REALLY want the party to waste the extra time trudging through the countryside for weeks because their mounts got eaten? I tend to find people that want to get on with the adventure and not have to fight mundane animal encounters taking the 'long' way. When you only have 4 hours to play once a week, do you want to kill that time on uninteresting extra travel because random monster #216 killed your mounts? Or do you want to get back to town, trade in your loot and move on in the adventure?


MerlinCross wrote:
Malikor wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Also unlike yaks bags of holding "don't talk back"
Or spit.

Or Die from AoE damage. Or charging Giant who's hungry. Or...

Point is most DMs tend to forget to target Bag of Holding and the loss of one, even if it is empty, is a step cost. Hireling/pack animal? Acceptable target.

But can they sing?


graystone wrote:

From my personal experience I don't often find DM's stealing familiars, burning spell books, defiling holy symbols or inventing situations where your mounts get eaten [assuming proper hiding/protection/placement].

It really boils down to wanting your party to get from point A to point B: do you REALLY want the party to waste the extra time trudging through the countryside for weeks because their mounts got eaten? I tend to find people that want to get on with the adventure and not have to fight mundane animal encounters taking the 'long' way. When you only have 4 hours to play once a week, do you want to kill that time on uninteresting extra travel because random monster #216 killed your mounts? Or do you want to get back to town, trade in your loot and move on in the adventure?

I've generally followed the "no more than one random encounter per journey" rule, so whether the party has mounts or not doesn't make much of a difference.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
MerlinCross wrote:


Point is most DMs tend to forget to target Bag of Holding and the loss of one, even if it is empty, is a step cost. Hireling/pack animal? Acceptable target.

I think if you as a DM are targeting bags of holding in PF1, you are probably a really bad DM?

So you made an npc with sunder feats, and walked up to someone and directly attacked their bag with probably a pretty hard check. Even if you succeed, you are probably going to die, since you spent one or two turns doing functionally nothing other than robbing some character of gold.

There is no in game reason for an opponent to do such an act, and is just a dm trying to mess with players. That kind of dming gets a big F from me


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Honestly, the best suggestion that I've heard on this was two fold.

1) Convert the Bag of Holding into an Invested item so the only cost to use it is for you to invest it at the start of your day.

2) Potentially add a 'Handy Haversack' style benefit to it as an optional activate action that costs you a resonance to reach in and get exactly what you need.

Otherwise have it function like a very large bag.

With these changes it feels like it would be in a much better place.

Sczarni RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

Gloom wrote:

Honestly, the best suggestion that I've heard on this was two fold.

1) Convert the Bag of Holding into an Invested item so the only cost to use it is for you to invest it at the start of your day.

2) Potentially add a 'Handy Haversack' style benefit to it as an optional activate action that costs you a resonance to reach in and get exactly what you need.

Otherwise have it function like a very large bag.

With these changes it feels like it would be in a much better place.

I really like this idea. Though honestly I would just skip making it an invested item at all. It seems weird to me that you couldn't just pass the bag around -- anybody should be able to open it without expending resources.

So would end up being a bag that's bigger on the inside (no resonance required for that part), but if you spend RP and activate the item, you can retrieve any one item inside as a single action.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

That would kind of break from the way that established magic items work in 2E but I'm not opposed to it. Alternatively if invested I could easily see you being able to allow other people to rummage through the bag.

That way at least someone is investing in it so there's a tangible cost other than the resources it took to make it.

It would also have the added benefit of protecting the items inside of it from being accessed by anyone you didn't grant access.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tamago wrote:
Gloom wrote:

Honestly, the best suggestion that I've heard on this was two fold.

1) Convert the Bag of Holding into an Invested item so the only cost to use it is for you to invest it at the start of your day.

2) Potentially add a 'Handy Haversack' style benefit to it as an optional activate action that costs you a resonance to reach in and get exactly what you need.

Otherwise have it function like a very large bag.

With these changes it feels like it would be in a much better place.

I really like this idea. Though honestly I would just skip making it an invested item at all. It seems weird to me that you couldn't just pass the bag around -- anybody should be able to open it without expending resources.

So would end up being a bag that's bigger on the inside (no resonance required for that part), but if you spend RP and activate the item, you can retrieve any one item inside as a single action.

I like keeping it invested, it gives an exceuse for my rogue to not allow the other party members to look at what I have inside and start questioning me where I got it

;)

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If the bag of holding requires resonance in any form, it inadvertently also makes it pretty much immune to pickpocking. That seems like a bug, not a feature.


JoelF847 wrote:
If the bag of holding requires resonance in any form, it inadvertently also makes it pretty much immune to pickpocking. That seems like a bug, not a feature.

you can still pickpocket the bag, just not from the bag.

The thief just has to wait 1 day before he can invest it himself and loot the insides


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Frankly, I think the best option is to just get rid of resonance entirely. It makes using utility items like the bag of holding a chore. It breaks verisimilitude: Why would opening a bag require some magical resource or force of will from the opener? It adds complexity, you now have to track every time you open your bag. Fixing it for individual items like the bag of holding adds more complexity in that you have to keep track what individual items take resonance and which ones don't. It's just not fun.


I think that resonance shows great promise, just not quite as harshly as it's currently presented.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Arakhor wrote:
I think that resonance shows great promise, just not quite as harshly as it's currently presented.

I think it could be workable IF they stop trying to use it as a 'one size fits all' fix for everything magic item. It could work as an attunement only metric. It could be used as a substitute for charges. It could be used to power an alchemist. What I don't think it can do is all of those at once.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It does seem a little bit odd that the alchemist is the only class that needs resonance to power their abilities. If you changed that, then you'd have the liberty to mess around with investment/charge mechanics, which I think are by far the most useful part of resonance.


The immovable rod costs 1 resonnace as well, as the oil of weightlessness or any fun-but-not-very-useful-item.

What did you expect? The whole game is designed around cumbersome micromanagement. Resonance is designed to increase the amount of micromanagement - and to make all magic items except weapons a pain in the ass to manage. Check at the knacksap of halflingkind: when you take a tart from it, you have to pay 1 resonance and you have to remove one of the 4 uses per day. Because "eating a tart for breakfast" is so powerful, it has to be limited on a per day basis on top of costing resonance.

The bag of holding is designed to avoid the encumbrance micromanagement minigame; but since most of the game is designed around micromanagement, it has to engage you in another micromanagement minigame. Namely the resonance minigame. If you don't like the resonance minigame, sell the bag, buy a sword and a cart and play the encumbrance minigame.

Arakhor wrote:
It does seem a little bit odd that the alchemist is the only class that needs resonance to power their abilities.

You think it's odd that non-magical-alchemy is centered around the management of a magical resource?

OK, but what other cumbersome micromanagement subsystem would you use for alchemy?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I will say that I don't think things should both have per day uses and cost resonance. I don't know how I feel about the bag however.


Gaterie wrote:
Arakhor wrote:
It does seem a little bit odd that the alchemist is the only class that needs resonance to power their abilities.

You think it's odd that non-magical-alchemy is centered around the management of a magical resource?

OK, but what other cumbersome micromanagement subsystem would you use for alchemy?

I think that we're a little bit off-topic now, but a class points system of course. It's one of the things Pathfinder is most notable for, after all.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

The fact that people are on here defending resonance use for the Bag of Holding just tells me there are some people that are going to defend anything and everything PF2. This is a ridiculous resonance requirement antithetical to the need of resonance. You want players going in and out of their bags without an Accounting - make it quick and easy, tally-free.

If I was a new player and I wanted to swap out a few items from my magic bag and the GM came at me with “are you keeping track of how many activations you’ve used placing and taking items from your bag?” I think my response would be “why are we using this system?”

This is a simple change, and a reasonable request - just remove the resonance cost. Issue closed.


Liegence wrote:

You want players going in and out of their bags without an Accounting - make it quick and easy, tally-free.

Interesting point. Though I think you are making a rather large assumption, that I don't think is supported by the actual game itself - remember, in the current system if you ever exceed the weight or volume limit of a bag of holding, it instantly destroys itself and (effectively) all of the objects in it.

That is to say, the current published system demands a far greater degree of accounting, and with far harsher penalties for failing to do so than merely having to make a flat-check to access your gear that day.

Now, in play most GMs I've seen ignore the destruction clause of exceeding the bag's capacity, and many also ignore the destruction clause of placing 'sharp' objects (for a given value of 'sharp') in a bag. But this isn't the published system - it's simply a common agreement that the group doesn't want to use the published mechanics, and prefers to house-rule them to be more forgiving. And there is nothing stopping a group from doing the same thing with regards to Resonance in Pathfinder 2 :)

Personally, I think applying a resonance cost to the bag of holding activations is actually appropriate, as it forces players to think about what they want their magic to do. I also think characters should have a more generous resonance pool, but invested items should have a resonance cost that scales with the item's power (e.g. a L20 item should require more resonance invested than a L1 minor doodad). I also think that alchemists should not only have a separate resource pool for infused alchemical items, but said items should have be treat as - instead of L for calculating bulk (to reiterate, only for their infused items). But those are my thoughts on the system from character creation sessions - we'll see how it feels in play.

Sczarni RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Arakhor wrote:
I think that resonance shows great promise, just not quite as harshly as it's currently presented.
I think it could be workable IF they stop trying to use it as a 'one size fits all' fix for everything magic item. It could work as an attunement only metric. It could be used as a substitute for charges. It could be used to power an alchemist. What I don't think it can do is all of those at once.

This! I actually really like the system as a replacement for charged or per-day magic items. It's one pool that's easy to track. But when you get things like wands that both use resonance and have charges, or magic items that are invested but also have usages that require resonance, things get even more complicated than they were to begin with.

Another thing that I think would help greatly is if resonance cost were explicitly spelled out in the item descriptions. That would make it much easier to see what abilities you get for "free" and what costs resonance.

Sczarni RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

Tamago wrote:
Another thing that I think would help greatly is if resonance cost were explicitly spelled out in the item descriptions. That would make it much easier to see what abilities you get for "free" and what costs resonance.

I wonder if it would help to have an icon or something for "spend a resonance point to do this." For example, the Cloak of Elvenkind could be something like this:

Cloak of Elvenkind wrote:
This cloak is deep green with a voluminous hood, and is embroidered with gold trim and symbols of significance to the elves. The cloak allows you to [Resonance icon] cast the ghost sound cantrip as an innate arcane spell. When you draw the hood up over your head (an Interact action), the cloak transforms to match the environment around you and muffles your sounds, giving you an item bonus to Stealth checks. If you [Resonance icon]activate the cloak, you pull the hood up and are affected by invisibility for 1 minute or until you pull the hood back down, whichever comes first.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd rather steer clear of more icons. How about two sub-paragraphs, one for invested powers and the other for activated/resonance powers?

Sczarni RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

Arakhor wrote:
I'd rather steer clear of more icons. How about two sub-paragraphs, one for invested powers and the other for activated/resonance powers?

That would definitely help clear things up, though it would take more space on the page.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I think I kind of like the bag of holding. The use of resonance does make players think about what they want to store in it and why. I imagine I would fill one with a variety of tools and situational kits to make sure my party always has an item bonus for relevant situations. 1 RP is not a high cost to give the whole party a bonus to Climb the frozen waterfall.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:
I think I kind of like the bag of holding. The use of resonance does make players think about what they want to store in it and why. I imagine I would fill one with a variety of tools and situational kits to make sure my party always has an item bonus for relevant situations. 1 RP is not a high cost to give the whole party a bonus to Climb the frozen waterfall.

I thought that anytools were standard equip for all parties. Just us?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:
I thought that anytools were standard equip for all parties.

Anytools? How much Resonance do they cost?


shroudb wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
I think I kind of like the bag of holding. The use of resonance does make players think about what they want to store in it and why. I imagine I would fill one with a variety of tools and situational kits to make sure my party always has an item bonus for relevant situations. 1 RP is not a high cost to give the whole party a bonus to Climb the frozen waterfall.
I thought that anytools were standard equip for all parties. Just us?

You still want various tools and kits for things that aren't Craft and Profession Skills. (Or did in PF1. No idea how it all plays out in 2E)

51 to 100 of 123 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Game Master Rules / Magic Items / Bag of Holding All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.