Resonance Survey 9 / 11 / 2018


General Discussion


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is a survey to voice your opinion on the PF2 Resonance system.

It is informal.
It is not backed by Paizo or any of its employees.
It is not scientific.
I am not a statistician.
I barely passed statistics.
I think I am objective.
Results shown in real-time.

PF2 Resonance Survey


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Filled it out but for me it was done more on a GM view (as I've not been a player in a number of years)

I don't 100% like resonance but I am 100% behind some of what it wants to achieve.

I personally can't stand the situation where combat ends and the first thing the group does is start spamming cure light wounds wands and chugging potions.
I understand fully why players do this and that it's more viable than alternatives, but for me personally it's an immersion and roleplay killer.

Now, for resonance itself (not played yet, only read the books) I wasn't super against the idea of it for attuning items and use for item activations.

For scrolls and potions it felt very out of place. Especially scrolls because I've always seen them in my mind as magically infused as part of the scribing, or a formula which becomes magical on reading, not something which required someone to infuse with magic during the casting.

I want Paizo to kill off low level item spam, and I hope they can find a way to do it without the gamey feeling system of resonance.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I really wish question 3 was multiple choice, since there's more than one thing to pick there.


Thank you very much for starting this thread and the survey!
It certainly offers more insight than Paizo's "Did you ever run out of Resonance?" question once per survey.
I hope they'll be paying attention to this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am a statistician. The appropriate analysis on the results are:
1) Graph them in a histogram, which you did.
2) Check for correlation between answers to different questions. For example, If 10% answeres Yes to Question X and 30% answered Potato to Question Y, if the answers where uncorrelated, then we would expect 3% to answer both Yes to Question X and Potato to Question Y. Higher than 3% would mean a positive correlation and lower than 3% would mean a negative correlation. Since you passed statistics, you know about the various numerical measures of correlation.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I can't find a way to view results on return trips to the site, because all I get "you have already taken that survey". Is there any way for early birds to check what other people answered later?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Results for Laik.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

avr wrote:
Results for Laik.

Thanks!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The first question would have benefited from an indifferent option, for those who don't think resonance affects fun one way or the other.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

After a quick glance at your survey, from someone who has a background with survey design in the social sciences (Psychology/Communication).

Questions #1 & 2: Need a third option for indifference. You should avoid forcing respondents to choose yes or no when there are other possible options such as being indifferent.

Questions #3 & 4: Needs to allow for multiple answers. You are asking a complex question without allowing for a complex answer and forcing the responder to choose only one option. Additionally, the "Other" category doesn't seem to have any fill-in, which makes it kinda useless.

Question #3: Your bias is showing. Question 3 has a response for not picking because you don't want resonance, but question 4 does not have a similar response for not picking because you want resonance. Considering the base of the question is about a possible scenario, saying you don't like that scenario shouldn't be an option in the first place (or should be included as "other").

Question #4: Some vague/problematic answers, particularly, "Introduce a replacement restriction mechanic that is new and forward thinking while still fun."

Question #5: Very broad/vague question. Answers can't be useful because the question isn't specific enough.

Finally, no matter how well-meaning you may be in making this survey - do realize that paizo would have very good reason to ignore it. It is a non-professionally designed survey that targets a small subset of players (players who frequent the forums enough to spot it & are interested in a non-official survey about a controversial topic from a random poster they know nothing about). Even if you did have a background in statistics/survey design, this skewed population alone would be enough to dismiss the results. So while this survey may be amusing, do not expect it to make or break anything.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Turelus wrote:


I want Paizo to kill off low level item spam, and I hope they can find a way to do it without the gamey feeling system of resonance.

Players don't like attrition or 15 minute adventuring days. Players don't care about CLW spam. Only salty GMs who have ideas about how other people should have fun care about it.

If you don't like CLW spam, stop forcing players to take damage. You can't have it both ways.

In 2e, players cant avoid damage. The monsters are more likely to hit on their first attacks and they HAVE to recover between encounters.

Either they're going to do it with low level consumables, or one player has to give up >50% of their daily spell slots and/or SP to heal others outside of combat.

Nothing helps a cleric RP like being unable to use their character defining domain powers because someone might need a heal later and you just can't allow players to access cheap healing.

Resonance is a great idea to help combat the problem of high level characters wearing too many items, but the double cost for consumables is honestly stupid. Consumable spamming has been a part of DnD since the beginning, and taking it away just to nerf CLW spam is a step in the wrong direction.

If you're worried about players getting back to full hp, then the developers need to either add healing on a short rest, stamina, or a healing surge mechanic that limits and/or defines the amount of healing that can be received by each player after each fight or in an adventuring day.

Why is it so much worse to have the party use wand charges to heal? The alternative is that one of your players can't use their resources for anything but healing, and realistically they'll do almost all of that healing outside of combat. Being forced to use limited daily resources "off screen" like that kills RP. When a Cleric CANT use their domain powers because they need that SP for healing it ruins the flavor of the class and honestly ruins the gaming experience for one of your four players.

Nobody wants to be a pure healer, and since buffs have been nerfed to the ground that's all you are as a healer. You heal out of combat and in combat you spam cantrips for damage. So much fun! Such an improvement!

Wands of CLW are a solution that the community found to address a flaw in game design. Mundane healing is too weak and unreliable and players would prefer not to exit the dungeon and rest for three weeks in between fights.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

What's the difference between "like" and "love"? Somebody please explain.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Robert Bunker wrote:
Wands of CLW are a solution that the community found to address a flaw in game design. Mundane healing is too weak and unreliable and players would prefer not to exit the dungeon and rest for three weeks in between fights.

So fix the flaw.

I hate CLW spam, but not because I'm a salty GM who wants players to die; I hate it because it's a weird and unthematic approach to out-of-combat healing.

In my personal games, I've implemented a "ten minute rest" rule, where players can recover most of their hit points and abilities with a ten minute break. This is tied in to a limit on how many ten minute rests can be taken in a day, to maintain attrition as a mechanic. And as soon as I implemented that rule, my players stopped buying piles of CLW wands - because I don't think players like abusing CLW wands either. They just want reliable out-of-combat healing.

So buff the Medicine skill so that it can do reliable out-of-combat healing, or implement a stamina system, or SOMETHING. Argue to get rid of the flaw, instead of arguing for the janky patch over the flaw to come back.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
I hate CLW spam, but not because I'm a salty GM who wants players to die; I hate it because it's a weird and unthematic approach to out-of-combat healing.

This. Paizo just needs to offer a more thematic alternative for reliable out of combat healing. If they don't want it to be stamina, item based, or mundane healing - a "healing circle" ritual fits the bill just fine. It's not class locked, isn't item based, isn't mundane, and can be easily interrupted in unsafe situations.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charon Onozuka wrote:

After a quick glance at your survey, from someone who has a background with survey design in the social sciences (Psychology/Communication).

Questions #1 & 2: Need a third option for indifference. You should avoid forcing respondents to choose yes or no when there are other possible options such as being indifferent.

Questions #3 & 4: Needs to allow for multiple answers. You are asking a complex question without allowing for a complex answer and forcing the responder to choose only one option. Additionally, the "Other" category doesn't seem to have any fill-in, which makes it kinda useless.

Question #3: Your bias is showing. Question 3 has a response for not picking because you don't want resonance, but question 4 does not have a similar response for not picking because you want resonance. Considering the base of the question is about a possible scenario, saying you don't like that scenario shouldn't be an option in the first place (or should be included as "other").

Question #4: Some vague/problematic answers, particularly, "Introduce a replacement restriction mechanic that is new and forward thinking while still fun."

Question #5: Very broad/vague question. Answers can't be useful because the question isn't specific enough.

Finally, no matter how well-meaning you may be in making this survey - do realize that paizo would have very good reason to ignore it. It is a non-professionally designed survey that targets a small subset of players (players who frequent the forums enough to spot it & are interested in a non-official survey about a controversial topic from a random poster they know nothing about). Even if you did have a background in statistics/survey design, this skewed population alone would be enough to dismiss the results. So while this survey may be amusing, do not expect it to make or break anything.

I did not vote in the survey because I think the design goals are legitimate but am not sure whether Resonance is the way to go. So when I was asked "Is Resonance needed?" I answered yes, though I am indifferent. When I got to the 3rd choice I couldn't pick multiple options, so I quit the survey. So I am an unrecorded data point...

P.S.: I think a survey should also include the design goals that the Paizo developers are now on record saying they are trying to address with Resonance.


Charon Onozuka wrote:

After a quick glance at your survey, from someone who has a background with survey design in the social sciences (Psychology/Communication).

Questions #1 & 2: Need a third option for indifference. You should avoid forcing respondents to choose yes or no when there are other possible options such as being indifferent.

Great feedback on the survey format. Someone could do a much better job than I did, but I was curious this morning.

I will defend question #1 not having an indifferent option: Does Resonance make the game more fun?

This is a game. Its objective is fun. There can be secondary objectives, but if it's not fun, you will not achieve them. The measure of a feature is how it contributes to overall fun. I don't think it's reasonable to dispute that.

I view this as a juror's legal test similar to, "Is this person guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?" You don't have to choose from (Guilty, Innocent, I don't know). You choose proven Guilty or not proven guilty. Similarly in this survey, you acknowledge Resonance improves fun in your opinion, or it does not. That's the measure. Does it positively contribute to the fun of PF2? If the answer isn't yes, there is only one option I'm interesting in collecting.

Would anyone like to see Fun, Indifferent, Not Fun? I guess. I can see that. It's more info. I wanted to get as basic as possible given my views on fun, why games exist, and why we play them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
The DM of wrote:
If the answer isn't yes, there is only one option I'm interesting in collecting.

Do you not see how that shows bias, though?

For example, if I said, "Does Resonance make PF2 more fun? If the answer isn't 'no', there is only one option I'm interested in collecting," wouldn't you say that makes me sound biased in favor of Resonance?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would say if you want to read a bias into this, my bias is fun. I'm not saying whether I think Resonance is or not. In fact I didn't take the survey. I do think features should be unequivocally fun though. Otherwise, why add them?

Grand Lodge

I'd say dropping the Resonance cost for consumables or possibly having CLW wands have a limited number of charges per day. For that matter, all wands. But then again, I haven't seen resonance be an issue in a game yet.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
The DM of wrote:


I will defend question #1 not having an indifferent option: Does Resonance make the game more fun?

This is a game. Its objective is fun. There can be secondary objectives, but if it's not fun, you will not achieve them. The measure of a feature is how it contributes to overall fun. I don't think it's reasonable to dispute that.

It's not reasonable to dispute that we think Resonance as a mechanic is needed for game balance reasons but not find it either unfun or fun? You're being biased af.


Dire Ursus wrote:
It's not reasonable to dispute that we think Resonance as a mechanic is needed for game balance reasons but not find it either unfun or fun?

I'm imagining Gary Gygax and Jeff Perren designing Chainmail...

"Let's give each unit numeric health...hit points...to show how much damage they've taken."

"I don't know Jeff. HP just isn't fun."

A rule doesn't have to be innately "fun" if it indirectly contributes to the game being interesting, challenging, etc. I think Resonance needs a signficant rework but, personally, I don't care if it's fun or not as long as it makes the game better (currently Resonance does not, in my opinion, but I easily see how it could with a few tweaks).


Gorbacz wrote:
What's the difference between "like" and "love"? Somebody please explain.

Some dictionaries might give some clue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There was some discussion on Resonance on >friday’s stream<.

Short summary:
- resonance will be changed
- resonance might be scrapped entirely, but it would have strong consequences on the economy (sounds unlikely).
- the main problem devs see is that it’s ‘all stick and no carrot’, they want people to find resonance useful rather than just a limit.

Watch the stream to know of some possible outcomes.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the model of "consumables function without resonance, but are more effective if you spend resonance" has potential.

Like 1 RP spent when drinking a healing potion makes it heal more, and 1 RP spent when reading a scroll heightens it (otherwise it's cast at the level it was written at, say.)


Gorbacz wrote:
What's the difference between "like" and "love"? Somebody please explain.

Place them in the context of a person describing how they feel about someone, that ought to make it pretty clear.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I think the model of "consumables function without resonance, but are more effective if you spend resonance" has potential.

Like 1 RP spent when drinking a healing potion makes it heal more, and 1 RP spent when reading a scroll heightens it (otherwise it's cast at the level it was written at, say.)

I'd honestly love for them to take it further and find ways for it to apply to most everying.

E.G Flaming loses its Persistent Damage on Crit. Gains instead something like.

Resonance Boost (Free action)
Trigger: You attack with this weapon.
Effect: This weapon also inflicts 1d4 persistent fire damage on a hit. 2d4 if the hit was a Critical


PossibleCabbage wrote:

I think the model of "consumables function without resonance, but are more effective if you spend resonance" has potential.

Like 1 RP spent when drinking a healing potion makes it heal more, and 1 RP spent when reading a scroll heightens it (otherwise it's cast at the level it was written at, say.)

I think something like this could definitely work - even if it was just for healing. I'd also incentivise boosting more powerful consumables if it was a multiplier rather than an additive boost. They'd still need to fix resonance for alchemists and add more points at low levels.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Palinurus wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I think the model of "consumables function without resonance, but are more effective if you spend resonance" has potential.

Like 1 RP spent when drinking a healing potion makes it heal more, and 1 RP spent when reading a scroll heightens it (otherwise it's cast at the level it was written at, say.)

I think something like this could definitely work - even if it was just for healing. I'd also incentivise boosting more powerful consumables if it was a multiplier rather than an additive boost. They'd still need to fix resonance for alchemists and add more points at low levels.

Alchemists just need to get a separate pool for their Alchemy stuff, like how Clerics got a separate pool for their channel so that they can do that without hurting anything else.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
Palinurus wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I think the model of "consumables function without resonance, but are more effective if you spend resonance" has potential.

Like 1 RP spent when drinking a healing potion makes it heal more, and 1 RP spent when reading a scroll heightens it (otherwise it's cast at the level it was written at, say.)

I think something like this could definitely work - even if it was just for healing. I'd also incentivise boosting more powerful consumables if it was a multiplier rather than an additive boost. They'd still need to fix resonance for alchemists and add more points at low levels.
Alchemists just need to get a separate pool for their Alchemy stuff, like how Clerics got a separate pool for their channel so that they can do that without hurting anything else.

Or just remove Resonance system and we are fine...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Brondy wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Palinurus wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I think the model of "consumables function without resonance, but are more effective if you spend resonance" has potential.

Like 1 RP spent when drinking a healing potion makes it heal more, and 1 RP spent when reading a scroll heightens it (otherwise it's cast at the level it was written at, say.)

I think something like this could definitely work - even if it was just for healing. I'd also incentivise boosting more powerful consumables if it was a multiplier rather than an additive boost. They'd still need to fix resonance for alchemists and add more points at low levels.
Alchemists just need to get a separate pool for their Alchemy stuff, like how Clerics got a separate pool for their channel so that they can do that without hurting anything else.
Or just remove Resonance system and we are fine...

Well no, we still have a problem of Alchemists having a limited supply of not quite level 1 spells as their class feature at level 1. But I guess not liking Resonance is enough, no need to actually extrapolate on how to deal with the gap in the system if you remove it.


LOL dead survey already. I WOULD have taken it. ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
LOL dead survey already. I WOULD have taken it. ;)

So would I, if only to provide some data points that, based on the posts in this thread, the OP probably wouldn't want to hear.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Resonance Survey 9 / 11 / 2018 All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion