| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure its a problem for all 1st level items. It's only really a problem with additive effects (i.e. effects that aren't affected by time or number of castings).
A 1st level wand of Charm isn't as useful as a 4th level wand unless you happen to be Charming a lot of low-level people all in a row, at which point they might notice.
Anything that involves action economy isn't additive either so really this is something specific to a few items and maybe that limited scope can have a limited solution applied to it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Vidmaster7:
#1 I suggested infinite resonance and that's not the same thing as suggesting infinite healing. I want to get rid of resonance by making it effectively gone which is a different issue.
#2 Sure you can. I'm just pointing out that your way makes it much harder for the other side than our way makes it for you to play the way you want. A small change to rarity gets you your way and I have to rework 3 interconnected issues [slots, per day uses and consumables]. For instance, what do I do if I think we should be able to use more consumables, less per day uses and just the right for slots? Having them under one umbrella really mucks that up.
#3 Not really a fair point when they have cut down the bonus types to 2-3. There just isn't the stacking that caused your issue with the christmas tree. So I'm not seeing how it's affecting your skill character. Can you point out 4 items that can stack to a single skill now? If you can't, why are you trying to limit my using 4 fun minor fluff items? As it is, there are many places/levels where you can't get an isem to boost your skill let alone multiple ones to buff your skill. :P
#4 Reasons: We all have personal reasons. I think it's easier for both of us to get what we want without resonance. If you want less consumables, I think fixing pricing and/or altering rarity is a better fit. If it's stacking skills bonuses, they already fixed that so it seems meaningless to fix 'slots'. I'd be fine with resonance for JUST per day items.
#5 "also your heal wands be rare idea only makes sense if the heal spell was rare.": I don't understand this. Rarity of a spell can be divorced from the rarity of an item for reasons I have gone into before. You can have more demand than supply: adventuring groups, mercenary groups, PFS society, ect buy up the low level wands making them hard to find before they sell out. Formulas aren't sold to protect the niche sales.
See if players have figured out the CLW wand is the best healing item, why can't NPC's? Why wouldn't they buy them up? And why wouldn't that reduce the amount found? Iphones are super common but it can take months to get the new one when they come out because there is more demand than supply.
#6 out of combat healing: to be clear, I've said I'm fine with healing up to max after every combat and in fact it makes it easier to set up encounters as you don't have to guess on how much attrition you'll have and then try to factor in luck [crits/misses]. WHat the issue with your statement would be is "nominalizing healing in general". I have no issue with out of combat healing having a cost. In fact, I expect it: wanting healed after combat isn't asking for it to be free.
Secondly, I want healing IN combat to be what's meaningful. I want the caster to feel like their spells are swinging encounters and making a difference in a fight. Having to swing a mace because you spent your spells in between combat is much less fun.
Thirdly, I want there to be an option to play with a group of characters that people WANT to play. Having an effective alternative to a dedicated healer in the group is key to that. Forcing someone to be the cleric isn't fun. I'm more than willing to throw resources at that to allow everyone to play what they want.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This scenario looks like it's going to be quite a rare occurrence: At level 1, you don't have enough gold (or rather silver) to buy a single Healing Potion nor a single Elixir of Life, as both cost 3gp. Even if you pick up one of these during or after your fights, they only heal you for 1d8 or 1d6 respectively, so neither of those would even heal you up to half of your maximum hit points. So at that point, the most efficient answer would be to adapt your fighting style and let someone else take some hits, instead of you. The only conclusion I draw from this scenario is that a healer is probably required at this point of the playtest, even if it doesn't have to be a fully dedicated healer.
Honestly, overall I don't have a big problem with this scenario, as it feels like this actually makes having Charisma as a dump stat relevant, which rarely has been the case before. The only thing that makes me worry a bit about this is how it affects the potential of Alchemists as healers, because it puts an additional cap on their healing, which they can't even influence themselves and is dependent on their companions. But I don't know if Alchemists can even pump out enough elixirs for this to become a problem too often...
Except you are presuming that the party healer is a cleric. If the party healer is an alchemist, they may have enough resonance to produce quite a few free healing elixirs, but they would require the recipient to have a resonance to activate.
Interesting enough, it also suddenly became apparent, and I'm not certain exactly why I didn't think of it before, but I know in many cases I've seen stories where an animal companion, mount or other creature got fed a potion, and suddenly, I'm not sure how this would be handled in PF2.
I have to say, since potions are wasted if they over-use roll for resonance fails, it makes trying a major problem. A odd... but potential solution would be that a potion won't successfully flow out of the flask unless it is able to draw the resonance. I don't really like that as an answer, but it might be 'acceptable' if nothing better is found.
Personally, I'm inclined to consider potions a good option for being a 'special' form of consumable that has a different limiter than other activation types of magic. I'd contemplated limiting it by something based on CON instead of CHA, or to be honest something much simpler. Perhaps rule one can only be under the effect of one potion at a time, and that any potion with an effect of instantaneous or permanent, would have a specific time that they are 'considered under effect' potentially tied back to the magic's level. Make it so 1st level potions with permanent effects have a 1hour effect. Make higher level potions have shorter effects.
You could say that if you drink a potion too soon, you hit a limiting factor. Perhaps if it is a different type of potion than you drank last, you might risk becoming sickened, and risk a mishap, and take minimal effect. If it is the same type of potion, you would at best take only get a reduced benefit from the potion. (either minimum or half effect, for instance)
That means you can't use simply drink potion after potion. (I'd grant one exception, being alchemists drinking their own imbued potions). Limiting the use of a 1st level healing potion to once an hour seems reasonable to me, and if they don't know someone has already drank a potion and feed them another, they would get a minimum healing effect (meaning intentionally, it wouldn't be something someone would plan to do, but would still get them stabilized none the less). It would mean that the advantage to buying a higher level potion would be shortening the time between which they can drink another potion. And only get a minimum HP restored would mean it would no longer be economically advantageous to use lots of the lower level potions.
This could solve the issue with potions getting wasted by failing a resonance check. Scrolls and other things that aren't as alchemical seeming in nature could continue to be ruled by some resonance like resource, while allowing a form of magic that can be used outside of the resonance mechanic, but still has limitations from being overused.
Then, if people want almost fee healing during rests, it can be a simple houserule either giving free full healing on short rest, or allow full or healing when triggered by some healing ability.
My ideal base would be the system would help control in combat healing to a reasonable level. Out of combat healing can be enabled to the desired feel (gritty, careful, action hero, cartoonish) via simple canned tweaks.
I for instance would find a true campaign setting for long term personal play would be far too much like Diablo play, to have near unlimited or automatic healing in between encounters. For a one shot night of playing, it would be fine, but I'd hate to have to there be no limiter to be able to tweak to tighten or loosen with some simple tweaks.
And don't say make potions cost 10x as much so the higher level characters can't abuse them with mini-nova's. Increasing the price makes them unavailable to the lower level characters who should be able to access them, and at some point, they still even then become affordable to the high level characters due to the increased income expected of the higher level characters.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting enough, it also suddenly became apparent, and I'm not certain exactly why I didn't think of it before, but I know in many cases I've seen stories where an animal companion, mount or other creature got fed a potion, and suddenly, I'm not sure how this would be handled in PF2.
NPCs have resonance, it's just not listed (except for the demilich), per an earlier dev post. They have enough resonance to do whatever they are supposed to do.
I was stuck on this point for completely different reasons (how would the iconic evil NPC wizard use a staff without resonance?), so the answer stuck with me. I don't think it's an elegant answer, but it's an answer.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I find that people not wanting to play a Cleric to be more about the class than the role.
I don't think that's true: From my perspective, it's more about healing being a reactive role instead of a proactive role. If things go off perfectly and you're role is healing, you might not DO anything or what you do isn't very exciting while other people are throwing lightning and pile driving dragons. This is why I want as much healing from spell slots to be in combat and meaningful so when a healer gets to heal, it feels important and game changing.
Secondly, I see people play clerics all the time but they generally aren't HEALING focused ones.
Vidmaster7:
#1 I suggested infinite resonance and that's not the same thing as suggesting infinite healing. I want to get rid of resonance by making it effectively gone which is a different issue.#2 Sure you can. I'm just pointing out that your way makes it much harder for the other side than our way makes it for you to play the way you want. A small change to rarity gets you your way and I have to rework 3 interconnected issues [slots, per day uses and consumables]. For instance, what do I do if I think we should be able to use more consumables, less per day uses and just the right for slots? Having them under one umbrella really mucks that up.
#3 Not really a fair point when they have cut down the bonus types to 2-3. There just isn't the stacking that caused your issue with the christmas tree. So I'm not seeing how it's affecting your skill character. Can you point out 4 items that can stack to a single skill now? If you can't, why are you trying to limit my using 4 fun minor fluff items? As it is, there are many places/levels where you can't get an isem to boost your skill let alone multiple ones to buff your skill. :P
#4 Reasons: We all have personal reasons. I think it's easier for both of us to get what we want without resonance. If you want less consumables, I think fixing pricing and/or altering rarity is a better fit. If it's stacking skills bonuses, they already fixed that so it seems meaningless to fix 'slots'. I'd be fine with resonance for JUST per day items.
#5 "also your heal wands be rare idea only makes sense if the heal spell was rare.": I don't understand this. Rarity of a spell can be divorced from the rarity of an item for reasons I have gone into before. You can have more demand than supply: adventuring groups, mercenary groups, PFS society, ect buy up the low level wands making them hard to find before they sell out. Formulas aren't sold to protect the niche sales.
See if players have figured out the CLW wand is the best healing item, why can't NPC's? Why wouldn't they...
#1 ah I see your comment made me think you wanted no limits on healing. I don't think money is enough of a limit. the best way I can explain this is with a Diablo 2 example. So I'm playing my 55 level barbarian on the dang swamp level with the pygmys. I get killed a bunch so all my gear is broken. and I'm broke on cash to keep fighting I need potions and better gear. in D2 you could fill your full inventory with potions (consumable healing items) or you could use your money to upgrade your gear. Potions might help in the short term but eventually you have to upgrade or you will being using more consumables and spending all your money on them never getting anywhere you will eventually be stuck and have to back track to lower level areas to farm cash to keep up with your potion addiction. (which sucks imo). In D3 they changed it so you don't need as many consumable healing items instead you have other ways of healing. you still have the potion but it has a cooldown and you don't have to keep buying them ad nauseum. Thats the closed I think I can come to explaining what I'm getting at with consumables. I think the game should have other ways of healing then just buying a large amount of consumable. (like how I keep pushing for the first aid skill to be improved.)
2. I feel like number 2 might have gotten jumbled up cause im not understanding your point in relation to the number 2 I will go back and try and figure that out.
3. I think your misinterpreting what I mean when I say magic making skills irrelevant. So lets say I have climb (or athletics now) So I invested in it and am happy that I can climb a sheer cliff because of my investment. the wizard just cast fly or spider climb which is basically auto sucess on climb. so it means my investment of the skill is a waste. while if say the wizard uses the spell slot and can only cast it on himself then ok I still get to use my skill and I can say hey I can do this all day you have a duration! honestly to your numbers are way off to what im thinking I'm not talking about 4 items I'm talking about an item that does the spell 12-50 times in a day. you can do your 4 items with the system as is.
4 the problem with priceing on items is if you make the price to high they can't afford it at low levels even if the spell is a low level spell. if its to low then we are back to square one. how are you going to balance the cost for character with both 1st level and 20th level wealth?
5# this is kind of minor but thats not really how economics work. if the heal spell is common and a person can make a heal wand if demand rises so that the wand is greatly wanted and purchased widely (which does make sense) then supply would nomrally increase as well. the people able to make them will look and say hey these wands are selling like hot cakes lets keep making these!
I think I missed this one somehow but to adress the making someone play a healer thing. So I think healing does need to be fixed but not in the way you suggest. IMO I think the heal skill needs to be improved so Its a acceptable (not phenomenal) alternative to healing. that combined with your group most likely having another dps class to shorten combat and maybe even occasionally assisted by consumables. I want that party to work. I just think their should be a better way to do it then what your suggesting.
(I think I covered everything let me know. )
Personally, I find that people not wanting to play a Cleric to be more about the class than the role.I don't think that's true: From my perspective, it's more about healing being a reactive role instead of a proactive role. If things go off perfectly and you're role is healing, you might not DO anything or what you do isn't very exciting while other people are throwing lightning and pile driving dragons. This is why I want as much healing from spell slots to be in combat and meaningful so when a healer gets to heal, it feels important and game changing.
Secondly, I see people play clerics all the time but they generally aren't HEALING focused ones.
I think one of the things they did in first edition D&D to help with this is by making the cleric an ok bludgeonner hes no fighter but he can get in their and bash some heads. the 1st ed d&d cleric spell list was terrible for anything besides healing really and their heals weren't that great till they got the heal spell. Domains really helped clerics get some variety I think. I do really like that they have a separate heal pool now.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Domains missed the entire point. Domains were a nod to sphere access which was one of the limiting aspects of 2nd edition clerics. Without sphere access limiting their spell selection (based on what kinds of powers a deity would actually grant their followers) clerics took the front seat as the most powerful class in 3rd, and frankly remained top 3 in pathfinder 1.0
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think one of the things they did in first edition D&D to help with this is by making the cleric an ok bludgeonner hes no fighter but he can get in their and bash some heads. the 1st ed d&d cleric spell list was terrible for anything besides healing really and their heals weren't that great till they got the heal spell. Domains really helped clerics get some variety I think. I do really like that they have a separate heal pool now.
In pathfinder classic, a cleric could toss up a self buff and wade into a fight and do ok. As to the spell list, it's not so bad. I'll grant you that you have to pick though to find the gems but they are there as long as you aren't just looking at core.
On your other post:
#1 I think cash and rarity would work fine. If you make wands NOT exponentially rise in price but have a consistent cost per average hp healed and make cheaper wands harder to find [because they sell out quicker] and I think it fixes thing pretty well.
#3 I'm confused how that relates to resonance. What item are you talking about? A wand? If so I'll say up the rarity of such wands if you don't like them. From my experience, I rarely see wands of such spells bought: they might pick up a few scrolls of such but that wouldn't impact this in any meaningful way. Secondly, why does it matter if you can do those skill spells a few time or "12-50 times in a day"? How many different times in a day would someone use them? It seems that a single 10 min spider climb covers any single climb so how many times do you climb 10 min? And fly is a 4th level spell [8th level item] so I can't see someone buying a bunch or burning through them in a day: by the time the price in meaningless, it's not that impressive.
And what I'm talking about is worn items as they use the SAME pool as those 'charged' items. You enforcing draconian limits on charges also limits me wearing my minor 'fluff' items that DON'T touch your 'skill' spells. With the one size fits all solution, invested items all cost a RP no matter how weak or strong they are and that is also equal to any charge or per day ability no matter how weak or strong. Is a regenerate spell charge really cost the same RP as a hand of the mages or a minor elixir of life?
#4 You add rarity into the equation. If lower level healing items are hard to find and it's not punitive to buy higher cost/level ones then people would buy them and if it isn't guaranteed that you can find healing items at all them people are going to want to conserve them. If you can't find a vending machine in every 1 horse town with an endless supply of wands and price is equalized, people will be happy to buy the higher level wands and aren't going to spam them as much.
#5 does it really matter how real life economics work? Pathfinder has never done a good job of emulation them. Though I'm not sure why you think they don't in this case.
You have a limited amount of people that can make the wand [expert in crafting and takes the feat]. Add to that you can make the formula a different rarity from the spell as you much have the formula before you can make the item. Then you have to factor in that they then have to spend more time in crafting to reduce the price so they make a profit: if we say it's a 4th level crafter, that's 6 sp/day which means it takes 23 days to get the most profit. Add the 2 days to make it and you have 25 days so lets say you take a few days off and you come up with 1 whole wand made per month. So you only have to have more than 1 person wantint a wand per month to make it so none are avalible.
So how many 4th level casters with expert in crafting and having the feat NPC are in each town making the wands? I think economics covers this just fine.
Lack of healer: I'm sure there are other ways to fix it. My issue is that they are all far more complicated than wands. You can fix healing but that takes quite a bit of rework and STILL requires someone to be the healer, just a skill healer. They have to pump up the skill and take some feats to do it cutting into what they normally would take.
I think one of the things they did in first edition D&D to help with this is by making the cleric an ok bludgeonner hes no fighter but he can get in their and bash some heads. the 1st ed d&d cleric spell list was terrible for anything besides healing really and their heals weren't that great till they got the heal spell. Domains really helped clerics get some variety I think. I do really like that they have a separate heal pool now.In pathfinder classic, a cleric could toss up a self buff and wade into a fight and do ok. As to the spell list, it's not so bad. I'll grant you that you have to pick though to find the gems but they are there as long as you aren't just looking at core.
On your other post:
#1 I think cash and rarity would work fine. If you make wands NOT exponentially rise in price but have a consistent cost per average hp healed and make cheaper wands harder to find [because they sell out quicker] and I think it fixes thing pretty well.#3 I'm confused how that relates to resonance. What item are you talking about? A wand? If so I'll say up the rarity of such wands if you don't like them. From my experience, I rarely see wands of such spells bought: they might pick up a few scrolls of such but that wouldn't impact this in any meaningful way. Secondly, why does it matter if you can do those skill spells a few time or "12-50 times in a day"? How many different times in a day would someone use them? It seems that a single 10 min spider climb covers any single climb so how many times do you climb 10 min? And fly is a 4th level spell [8th level item] so I can't see someone buying a bunch or burning through them in a day: by the time the price in meaningless, it's not that impressive.
And what I'm talking about is worn items as they use the SAME pool as those 'charged' items. You enforcing draconian limits on charges also limits me wearing my minor 'fluff' items that DON'T touch your 'skill' spells. With the one size fits all solution, invested items all cost a RP...
\
I really don't think money or even money + rarity is enough to fix the problems. plus the requires me a DM to constantly be watching out for what items and how much gold I'm giving out and what my players are crafting. I can't just let the game go I have to play banker too.
Its about really any item that can be used multiple times a day it could be a potion if you decided to buy 50 potions and had a good way to carry them.
Huh now the idea that lower level items would use less resonance for higher level characters that is interesting. I'll give you that. I'll think on that one.
The rest of it goes back to my not trusting money and rarity alone to limit magic items. plus I still disagree with your economic assessment.
IF you would of said resonance is to limiting in its current form I would agree, but I think it can be changed to work just fine with a little tweaking.
One last thing expecting a character to spend skill feats on skills to do the job of a class is not to much to ask for. In Pathfinder you invest in things and get better at it. Its how it works for every skill. You have to spend some resource to get something in the game. whether its a feat a skill money etc. What do you mean what they would normally take oh the DM put a wall in the way sigh guess I have to take athletics instead of what skill I would normally take. Oh the DM is using aberrations sigh guess I have to put skills into (whatever skil it is now) so I can identify them instead of what I would of normally taken sigh. You can make that argument for literally every single choice in the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really don't think money or even money + rarity is enough to fix the problems. plus the requires me a DM to constantly be watching out for what items and how much gold I'm giving out and what my players are crafting.Aside form the cash/rarity/time thing, this might be a DM approach issue; since I started DMIng, I have always kept an eye (a pretty keen one) on how much money the party is collecting/is available, and certainly what magic items are included in the campaign, I carefully consider all magic items before inclusion. As for crafting, never seen it done, usually don't have the time or money.
I want my players to use the crafting rules. I've seen em do it. I just don't want them to drastically alter the game in doing so.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really don't think money or even money + rarity is enough to fix the problems. plus the requires me a DM to constantly be watching out for what items and how much gold I'm giving out and what my players are crafting. I can't just let the game go I have to play banker too.
I'm not sure I understand. You HAVE to manage gp for other items so you're doing that anyway and with resonance you're also constantly watching what items people use so I don't see any more burden by shifting that to only checking when they craft.
Secondly, as I mentioned you don't have to give out formulas for things you don't want. If you don't LIKE wands, don't give out the patterns and is you do like them, then I'm not sure why you complain.
Its about really any item that can be used multiple times a day it could be a potion if you decided to buy 50 potions and had a good way to carry them.
It's seems quite simple to me: there aren't 50 to buy if you don't want them to buy 50... Seems super simple.
The rest of it goes back to my not trusting money and rarity alone to limit magic items. plus I still disagree with your economic assessment.
Quite simply it's just factoring in how crafting works: if you want to make money, you have to spend extra time and with something as expensive as magic items that takes quite a bit of time. This means that you just can't 'make more' when you have more demand as doing so wouldn't make you any more money as it's the extra time that makes you money not the base item: in fact, making more cuts into your profits as you lose extra days making the initial items. For that typical low level maker that's jumped through all the hoops to do it, that's about 1/month at max profit.
IF you would of said resonance is to limiting in its current form I would agree, but I think it can be changed to work just fine with a little tweaking.
See I can't agree as I have different expectations for it's different effects. I want/need a different number for consumable use than slots and I want/need a different number for uses per day. As such, if it stays in any form it'll need heavily changed IMO and be much more narrow in scope.
Huh now the idea that lower level items would use less resonance for higher level characters that is interesting.
This is the thing for me. It's not just item levels as a staff could spit out a low level spell or a high level spell and be a high level item. And it's also about a worn item costing the same as a minor elixir of life that's also the same as the per day death beam from a sword. IMO they have different weights and shouldn't be equal in how many times per day you can use them.
So for me per day use and charge cost should vary wildly depending on the power/level of the effect accessed and not the item level itself. Just because a 20th level artifact cast it, a cantrip is still a cantrip and it should cost more than me using my hand of the mage. There isn't a quick fit for me.
One last thing expecting a character to spend skill feats on skills to do the job of a class is not to much to ask for.
You're missing the point then. The whole point is no one wanted to do the job/play the class. It's missing the point to then force them to do the job/play the class but just do it in a different way.
You can make that argument for literally every single choice in the game.
You really can't IMO. If you have a wall there are a multitude of ways around it. A familiar/animal companion climb it/flies up and drops a rope. Or the rogue climbs it. Or the wizard casts a spell. Or... Your investment isn't in JUST that one single specialized thing. Athletics lets you jump, climb, grapple, break, ect. Healing pretty much JUST lets you heal and it's 100% each and every time you adventure unlike athletics.
The heal skill... well just lets you heal, only lets you do it 1/day/person AND had a good chance of you strangling the person instead of healing them. THAT'S for the person that specialized by buying up the skill, buying the items and taking feats. And on top of that it's taking away for the other skills they wanted like that athletics skill.
If lack of Resonance points at low levels wasn't so deadly, I think it would be fine. I do admit that for my level 4 monk, choosing between 12 WIS and 12 CHA, I went with 12 CHA specifically because of Resonance. But that's the kind of light-pressure that's really nice.
So if Resonance gains were front loaded so that a Dwarven Fighter with 8 CHA had at least 3 Resonance points at level 1, I think things would work. It's probably also a good idea if level 20 characters didn't have upwards of 26 Resonance points. Mostly this feels like a basic math issue.
Combined with healing potions doing a small amount of healing on a Resonance roll failure, I think the system as a whole starts to make a lot of sense.
In terms of crafting, it's absolutely a thing in some campaigns. I remember one campaign when it was common and others were it was occasional, but still character-defining.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the bolstered mechanism would be an better fix for the 1st level wand spam than resonance.
In my opinion, put bolstered as an effect to wands and other problematic items and you can get rid of resonace and the silly nonsence it creates like bag of holding being completely unusable as it is written. (before updates, at any rate)
Its worthwhile to note that you could have varied durations of bolstering. "Bolstered against the spell for 10 minutes" for example.
Not sure how much I like it, but it's leagues better than resonance.
Interesting enough, it also suddenly became apparent, and I'm not certain exactly why I didn't think of it before, but I know in many cases I've seen stories where an animal companion, mount or other creature got fed a potion, and suddenly, I'm not sure how this would be handled in PF2.NPCs have resonance, it's just not listed (except for the demilich), per an earlier dev post. They have enough resonance to do whatever they are supposed to do.
I was stuck on this point for completely different reasons (how would the iconic evil NPC wizard use a staff without resonance?), so the answer stuck with me. I don't think it's an elegant answer, but it's an answer.
So your saying my goblin knight's riding wolf can drink her companion alchemist's elixir of life to be healed once or twice. [basically, saying it has at least a couple resonance, despite its CHA being listed as having a negative two modifier? It doesn't list resonance, so it isn't viewed as it having any risk of using up any resonance it might need? (Str +1, Dex +2, Con +1, Int –4, Wis +1, Cha –2)
Honestly, it if that is the case, it is a little disturbing. On the other hand, if it isn't, it prevents me from feeding a healing potion to the mount like I feel is a part of normal adventuring in the past and not something I really want to go away.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
We included resonance when the creature had a real chance to exhaust it all or uses it for its main abilities, which I think is only the demilich.
Yes, your mount has unspecified-but-presumed-to-be-adequate-for-their-needs resonance. Unless you are riding a demilich, in which case you will need to track that resonance.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the bolstered mechanism would be an better fix for the 1st level wand spam than resonance.
In my opinion, put bolstered as an effect to wands and other problematic items and you can get rid of resonace and the silly nonsence it creates like bag of holding being completely unusable as it is written. (before updates, at any rate)
Its worthwhile to note that you could have varied durations of bolstering. "Bolstered against the spell for 10 minutes" for example.
Not sure how much I like it, but it's leagues better than resonance.
It could work as a percentage too. For instance you could make wands "1/4th Bolstered against the spell for 10 minutes" so that your fine with the first 3 but the 4th knocks it out of use. IMO, I'll agree with you that I'm not sure how much I like it but it's so much better than resonance it's not funny... :P
|
Two points
Resonance should possibly go up say 1 point per four levels. This could allow for an 8 charisma character to use magic. Hand in hand with this I would do away with minus 2 to dwarven charisma and instead go with plus two to any stat. Think of it this way. Some dwarves will be good with magic ie. 12 plus charisma. Some dwarves should be strong, and some robust, some more intelligent. Think of the seven dwarves or Tolkienesque party of dwarves. All dwarf PCs could be flavored even more different than current iterations . This also allows for a non penalized dwarf paladin because of charisma. Who says the dwarves have no good leaders, charismatic kings etc? The previous 40 years of rpgs!, I say do away with charisma penalties for all races and let it be ten for all.
Second point, resonance allows for a more balanced game and magic to mean something. Currently everyone has oodles of magic in most games and it is hard to balance because, the higher level, the more you get. With resonance you will have to pick and choose. I am looking at the system and will post what I think about resonance after playing a few sessions.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hope they fix it by tossing it entirely and reworking how many charges wands get.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hope they fix it by tossing it entirely and reworking how many charges wands get.
Exactly, reword Wands to have 0 Charges and instead be Weapons you can apply Runes to that you can make your Ranged Spell Attacks with. Wands in EVERY non 3.X-styled Fantasy story I've ever read, watched, or heard that featured Wands did not simply relegate them to being simply disposable multi-use spell containers.
I'm really feeling like considering:
Resonance = ( Charisma + Level ) divided by 2
One half that value: (round down, maybe min 1 if possible)
is your max you can utilize in Invested resonance.
the remainder can only be used for expended or consumed resonance.
If you have at least one unexpended/assigned resonance left during a short rest of an hour that you don't expend any resonance in, I suggest you are allowed to recover a point of consumable/expendable resonance afterwards.
I also have to say I'd suggest moving potions (and possibly oils) to a bolster/cooldown mechanism keeping you from using multiple potions rapidly unless you are an alchemist drinking your own imbued elixirs, but otherwise separated from resonance.
What this would do would mean your average 1st level would have, say 1st level, 10 CHA and would have 5 resonance, of which they could only Invest at most 2 resonance into Invested items, while still having 3 for consumables such as scrolls, trinkets and the like. If they didn't have any invested items, they could even used those points. A 20th level individual with say a 16 CHA would have 18 resonance, of which 9 could be placed into invested items. These values don't seem horribly off from the original values, but seems to boost the low end which seemed to scant, and gently curbs the greater levels where they seemed unimportant, despite that being the level they seemed to be more concerned about spamming of lower level items.
If they don't overextend themselves, they can rest to regain some of their resonance spent on consumables. If they botch a resonance over-spend, they obviously don't have resonance left, so they won't be able to regain resonance through the short rest option. They would need to wait for a full rest, and get their full resonance back. Although personally, I don't think your invested resonance you should get back, it should automatically be renewed unless you divest yourself of the item. Instead of getting all your resonance back, and spending to be invested again, you get all non-invested resonance back, and all invested resonance is renewed unless you divest of the item.
You might even have some options for special consumable points either by default, or as a feat option being given to classes to spend on specific types of consumables. (wizard being able to have special points that can only be used by default for activating scrolls for an example)
Why do all the answers seem to make things more complicated than they need to be?
Just make wands have charges that are much lower than they used to be.
It was one of the ONLY things that 5e got right.Wands/staves/ect. have a number of charges = to the casting mod of the person that made it.
It gets back half the total charges rounding up each day.If you want to limit it more, add a bolstering effect to the use of consumable items that does not apply to the use of the spell.
ex. You can be healed by the heal spell all day assuming people can cast it, but you can only be healed by a consumable once.
No more resonance.
Or
If you REALLY want to keep resonance, make it based on CON, a stat that nobody will be leaving at 8, but also nobody can start with an 18.
Really though, of all the issues that PF2 has, this is the very least of my worries.
And nobody as a primary stat.