Paizo stream: Resonance, Focus, Items and (!) Class Powers.


Magic Items

51 to 100 of 110 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
We know that classes will grant bonus focus points, but we don't know the exact mechanism for doing so. Having it be Wis+Cha for monks, Int+Cha for wizards, etc seems like a decent guess. But we will probably have more information when the scenario drops tomorrow.

So Wis+Cha would be fine, except for how the monk gets exactly the same bonus from Charisma as they do Wisdom, which is not ideal. It's not the fault of the Focus system so much as the rest of the monk chassis having nothing wisdom focused outside of spells though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Anyway, these mostly sound like cool changes. I'm a little sad to see Resonance gutted quite this heavily, but such is life. I had been speculating on collapsing spell points and Resonance into one pool, and it looks like a pretty neat direction.

I'm a little bummed once per day items are remaining-- possibly even becoming more prevalent. I suppose if all items are ONCE per day sans focus tracking it shouldn't be too bad. Just put a check mark next to each magic item, and somewhere you can check to indicate if you've gone full focus mode spamming with it.

I'm glad to hear powers are getting buffed, as many of them needed it, especially with how limited spell points are. I wonder if we will wind up with more points to use them with.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
We know that classes will grant bonus focus points, but we don't know the exact mechanism for doing so. Having it be Wis+Cha for monks, Int+Cha for wizards, etc seems like a decent guess. But we will probably have more information when the scenario drops tomorrow.
So Wis+Cha would be fine, except for how the monk gets exactly the same bonus from Charisma as they do Wisdom, which is not ideal. It's not the fault of the Focus system so much as the rest of the monk chassis having nothing wisdom focused outside of spells though.

Again, I'd wait and see what the model looks like before getting too worked up. There's a variety of ways they could make wisdom matter more. Hopefully there's a Saijan pre-gen to give us some clues on it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
We know that classes will grant bonus focus points, but we don't know the exact mechanism for doing so. Having it be Wis+Cha for monks, Int+Cha for wizards, etc seems like a decent guess. But we will probably have more information when the scenario drops tomorrow.
So Wis+Cha would be fine, except for how the monk gets exactly the same bonus from Charisma as they do Wisdom, which is not ideal. It's not the fault of the Focus system so much as the rest of the monk chassis having nothing wisdom focused outside of spells though.

not really.

one grants you Focus points, and the other grants you Focus points and +DC on your abilities, and +healing on your abilities and etc.

(IF it's even wis+cha, i personally doubt it. From what i infered from the stream, it will be 1+Cha+static bonuses)


It would probably be real easy just to add a monk ability that says to use wisdom instead of charisma.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Once and Future Kai wrote:


Logan said it in the chat around 30 minutes.
Quote:

tibbydapug:did you see survey data about decoupling extra dice from magic item bonus to be based on character level?

loganbonner:tibbydapug: We asked about "inherent martial ability," rather than level per se. But if you consider that close enough, we do. It was... not popular.

I saw that. I meant.. Survey Data portion, not his response.

On the Survery they ask about "inherent martial ability" but just that phrase doesn't really explain the concept.

As I have not gotten to that survey yet (as I am on Part 2 now) I don't know what the wording on that survey is.
So I was curious if that wording actually explained said concept-or if it just assumed "inherent martial ability" would be self explanatory. Because when I think that phrase, I go to concepts closer to BaB--Or in this edition that would be Profiency's bonus to hit.
Not the Enhancment Bonus discussions.

I suppose I'll see that survey eventually--ideally it is worded far clearer than those quotes imply.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:

not really.

one grants you Focus points, and the other grants you Focus points and +DC on your abilities, and +healing on your abilities and etc.

(IF it's even wis+cha, i personally doubt it. From what i infered from the stream, it will be 1+Cha+static bonuses)

Well, let's look at the monk feats which are ki powers shall we:

Ki Strike: No DC, No bonus from Wisdom
Wholeness of Body: No DC, Adds WisMod to amount healed.
Dimensional Steps: No DC, no bonus from wisdom
Ki Blast: Has a DC, no bonus from Wisdom
Wild Winds Stance: No DC, no bonus from Wisdom.
Wind Jump: No DC, no bonus from Wisdom.
Wild Winds Gust: No DC, no bonus from Wisdom.
Quivering Palm: DC, no other bonus from Wisdom
Empty Body: No DC, no bonus from Wisdom

So 6 of the 9 Ki powers have no benefit from wisdom whatsoever. Only 2 have a DC, so if you don't pick Ki Blast or Quivering Palm (not strong choices at those levels anyway IMO) the only thing an 16 Cha/8 Wis Goblin monk does worse than a 16 Wis/8 Cha Dwarf Monk is "Heals 4 less damage with wholeness of body".

So it can't just be "Cha determines how many Ki powers you can use, and Wis will take care of itself" since Wisdom does very little for monks currently outside of "how many ki powers you can use."


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I might offer a discordant / optimistic voice on the Monk issue:

If Ki powers get added a Wisdom requirement AND Monk gains one free Focus from class, the issue becomes non-existant.

Current situation:
Wis16 Cha10 Monk has 2 power points plus one per power (ish).
He boosts Wisdom to gain additional uses and DCs.

Situation with that change:
Wis16 Cha10 Monk has 2 power points plus one per power (ish).
He boosts Wisdom to gain more powers, additional uses, and DCs.

If this can be done for each class, say, Cleric’s channel feats requiring Cha or domain feats requiring Wis, Wizard’s specialist powers requiring Int, Druid’s order powers requiring Wis and so on, then s*#% works out and everyone’s happy.

As for Cleric, it needs a nerf, badly. No matter the healing situation, playing a Cleric in 2e is like running a Gestalt character in a regular party, you can’t have more than double everyone else’s spell slots and pretend it’s fine. Focus might just be the chance to do it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Maybe this is the question they're referring to?

Quote:
I would prefer no potency on weapons and armor at all. Attack roll bonuses and AC bonuses would come from item quality, damage would come from my character's inherent martial ability, and any necessary saving throw bonuses could come from elsewhere.

edit: It's near the end of the rules survey. It seems pretty clear, but knowing what it meant before reading it makes me a poor choice for evaluating clarity.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
ErichAD wrote:

Maybe this is the question they're referring to?

Quote:
I would prefer no potency on weapons and armor at all. Attack roll bonuses and AC bonuses would come from item quality, damage would come from my character's inherent martial ability, and any necessary saving throw bonuses could come from elsewhere.
edit: It's near the end of the rules survey. It seems pretty clear, but knowing what it meant before reading it makes me a poor choice for evaluating clarity.

I remember seeing that in the survey and thinking it needed a "yes to some no to others" response. That was too much to group into one question.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
ErichAD wrote:

Maybe this is the question they're referring to?

Quote:
I would prefer no potency on weapons and armor at all. Attack roll bonuses and AC bonuses would come from item quality, damage would come from my character's inherent martial ability, and any necessary saving throw bonuses could come from elsewhere.
edit: It's near the end of the rules survey. It seems pretty clear, but knowing what it meant before reading it makes me a poor choice for evaluating clarity.

Talk about lumping 5 question togheter so you can be sure any data you gain from it is usless


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not surprised that inherent Potency was poorly recieved, as many players dislike the idea of Fighters having a whiff of inherent magic.

I wonder instead could Potency be moved to other gear slots. Handwraps that boost held weapons could work in a similar fashion to Potency, allowing players to switch weapons if needed, and the non-Potency runes could still be tied to individual weapons.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This is a significant improvement over resonance. But that's not a low bar to clear considering how much I loathe resonance. I have some mixed reactions to some aspects of this.

I was skeptical of focus when I first heard of it. Now I like it both better and less than I did originally. It sounds like they're not going the route that was initially implied of consumables being terrible without focus and only really useful with focus being spent (I believe the example was healing potions doing d4 healing without focus but d8 with it). So it's good that it's not becoming simply a slightly disguised resonance. But combining it with spell points just doesn't seem like a good idea to me. I do like the name focus better than spell points. But it's similar to the problem they're solving with the alchemist, choosing abilities or magic items. And the charisma connection just doesn't really work for some classes, like monk.

The retention of uses per day is not great. That was one thing I think resonance, or something that replaced it could actually be useful in replacing. The one charge wand thing seems like it's kind of a back-door replacement of Focus for charges when it comes to wands, as well as staves. But from the description, it doesn't sound like there is going to be nearly enough focus points to be a true replacement for charges or x times a day uses, especially since focus is also needed for powers. It'll also still require tracking whether the 1 use per day was used or not as well as focus, so it doesn't cut down book-keeping as much as it could have.

I'm also not sure this constant push to make charisma relevant is really useful. Why does CHA have to be important to all characters? It seems like it's going towards making all characters more MAD than they currently are. Dump stats aren't really a thing anymore anyway.

Focus might be a good addition to the game, but I think it needs more work.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ediwir wrote:
As for Cleric, it needs a nerf, badly. No matter the healing situation, playing a Cleric in 2e is like running a Gestalt character in a regular party, you can’t have more than double everyone else’s spell slots and pretend it’s fine. Focus might just be the chance to do it.

Or, everyone else has too few spells and Cleric is the one that is right?

I'm not sure where the idea that every spellcaster in the game should actually be a martial that happens to also have a couple of spells came from, but that isn't something that has to be the case.


I think casters should have some additional flexibility. I would love to see something akin to 5E or Arcanist casting to let casters use their slots more effectively. However, a special pool (sitting ON TOP of focus) of 3 to 8 spell slots heightened to your highest spell level is not remotely OK. Its ludicrous. If Paizo doesnt take the nerf bat to that, I will add it to my homebrew fix list.

In 5E, high level caster spell slots are limited to one. Basically, a level 20 5E Cleric can cast 4,3,3,3,3,2,2,1,1 spells. In this game, those slots get to 3 like all the others lower level ones plus they can get a 10th level slot. Compared to tbe current iteration of the worlds most popular rpg, casters get way more that they can do per day. When you factor in heightened spell point powers (Fire Ray, etc), you get even more you can do.

Also, compared to 5e and even PF1, combat healing is really really effective.

End of the day, they have to nerf channel into non-existence. Its not remotely ok. Sure, spells can use some love but giving clerics a crazy number of extra high level slots is not the answer.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Data Lore wrote:
I think casters should have some additional flexibility. I would love to see something akin to 5E or Arcanist casting to let casters use their slots more effectively. However, a special pool (sitting ON TOP of focus) of 3 to 8 spell slots heightened to your highest spell level is not remotely OK. Its ludicrous. If Paizo doesnt take the nerf bat to that, I will add it to my homebrew fix list.

Having two of them is too much, yeah. I'd be perfectly okay with folding channel into the focus pool in some way.

Quote:
In 5E, high level caster spell slots are limited to one. Basically, a level 20 5E Cleric can cast 4,3,3,3,3,2,2,1,1 spells. In this game, those slots get to 3 like all the others lower level ones plus they can get a 10th level slot. Compared to tbe current iteration of the worlds most popular rpg, casters get way more that they can do per day. When you factor in heightened spell point powers (Fire Ray, etc), you get even more you can do.

And compared to 1e, which is where most of the initial 2e players will be coming from, it's highly limiting, plus the spells themselves are far weaker on top of it.

Less spells of high power is one thing. Equal spells of less power is another thing. Less spells of less power is not a fun adjustment, and "well you can swing a sword moderately effectively now to fill the gap" is really not a satisfactory answer. (Nor are cantrips, especially since Clerics don't even get a ranged one that works on anything alive.)

Quote:
Also, compared to 5e and even PF1, combat healing is really really effective.

Which is great, except that if the only way to do it is via spell slots, there's only one outcome: pressure to play a pure healbot and make most of your spell slots healing. Because realistically, almost no spell you can put in the slot will be more effective than Heal.

The real upside in having some other way to get the Heal castings is you free players up to use their spell slots for other stuff, thus allowing them to offer healing without being confined to a one dimensional healbot character.

It's hard enough to get people to play healers as it is, punishing them for it is not going to help.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I really like most of these changes!

But I will say that folding pools together, while it means less tracking, it also causes a lot of issues. Suddenly all abilities that drain from this pool must be balanced vs each other and opportunity costs become very important! This was the issue with old resonance "It's too valuable to use on anything besides permanent magic items + heals".
So let's hope Focus doesn't cause a lot of abilities to become "useless" in comparison to other usages.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thanks for the quote. Yeah.. i'm probably not the best as I know the context.
but. it did seem fairly muddled and notspecific.
Kinda think they ought to rephrase it and break it into a few more precise set ups


The question groups a bunch of things together and presents one specific alternative. I could see reading the question as "Do you want to do 6d10+str damage on attacks, or only 1d10+str". Or people really like their weapons to be most of their power output. Maybe they'd like potency runes to be part of spell casting as well.

I really like the staff change proposed and look forward to seeing how that's written exactly. I'm currently not certain how using staves works before the change though, like whether or not spell list access is by level, or if someone with a starting multiclass feat, or racial spell, has access to the spell list and thus staff use. The wand change sounds fine.

Focus and resonance sound a bit odd. I feel like I need to see exactly how it's written as I'm not sure its actually different from the current version in any useful way. I still prefer its removal.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd really like it if a Monk or Irorian Cleric/Paladin could get potency/property runes as knuckle tats, honestly.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
ErichAD wrote:

Maybe this is the question they're referring to?

Quote:
I would prefer no potency on weapons and armor at all. Attack roll bonuses and AC bonuses would come from item quality, damage would come from my character's inherent martial ability, and any necessary saving throw bonuses could come from elsewhere.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I answered that in negative, although I have posted here how weapon damage dice increases SHOULD be scaled based on character Level/Proficiency (die TYPE based on weapon type). I don't have problem with attack bonuses and SOME damage coming from weapon magic (flaming, other effects), and I don't have problem with armor magic boosting AC, and I don't strongly care either way but would be happy with normal enhancement Save bonuses being tied to character.

But that question was vague & convoluted enough I didn't fully understand what it was talking about, and couldn't specifically address each issue individually, so I'm pretty sure I answered negative to over-all question. I'm really horrified if Paizo is using that poll question to determine design.


Any word on how this might work with Alchemist(You know the class designed to use Resonance).

Do we just have Focus now?


MerlinCross wrote:

Any word on how this might work with Alchemist(You know the class designed to use Resonance).

Do we just have Focus now?

Alchemist has Focus, and then also has a pool of (level + Int) infusion things. They can use 1 infusion thing to produce 2 alchemical items during daily prep, or 1 at any time to Quick Alchemy. So basically, the same as now, just that resonance isn't imposing a tax on their points.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
We know that classes will grant bonus focus points, but we don't know the exact mechanism for doing so. Having it be Wis+Cha for monks, Int+Cha for wizards, etc seems like a decent guess. But we will probably have more information when the scenario drops tomorrow.

I am not sure we will have that answer until later. Mark seemed to indicate in the Stream that it might be possible non-CHA casters will get some Focus outside of CHA, but I do not think they have made up their minds or even if they are going to use this next version of magic item limitation. Mark also said all of the caster characters used for this limited test were characters who already had significant desire for CHA.

The playtest scenario we get will have an Alchemist, Barbarian, Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, and Sorcerer as options and it is likely to only have rules for those character types (and probably is intended to be used with only those pre-generated characters).

I am sure they want to give this a good test run before bothering with further rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:

Any word on how this might work with Alchemist(You know the class designed to use Resonance).

Do we just have Focus now?

Alchemist has Focus, and then also has a pool of (level + Int) infusion things. They can use 1 infusion thing to produce 2 alchemical items during daily prep, or 1 at any time to Quick Alchemy. So basically, the same as now, just that resonance isn't imposing a tax on their points.

No but it's Focus that's the tax isn't it?

I'm sorry I'm just not a fan of PF2 Alchemist having everything tied to a pool. But that's for another topic.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
MerlinCross wrote:
I'm sorry I'm just not a fan of PF2 Alchemist having everything tied to a pool. But that's for another topic.

Well, the PF1 alchemist also had their stuff tied to pools it's just that one of them was spell slots, and it never made sense for the alchemist to be a spellcaster. Besides, tracking "bombs left" as separate from "extracts" separate from "do I have a mutagen handy" was more things to track anyway.


I mean in theory the alchemist should be entirely based around money and pre-made items but then that kind of sucks for the alchemist player who will have less gold for other things and has to anticipate what he produces so its like being a spell caster but your also broke.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
I'm sorry I'm just not a fan of PF2 Alchemist having everything tied to a pool. But that's for another topic.
Well, the PF1 alchemist also had their stuff tied to pools it's just that one of them was spell slots, and it never made sense for the alchemist to be a spellcaster. Besides, tracking "bombs left" as separate from "extracts" separate from "do I have a mutagen handy" was more things to track anyway.

I always thought of the Alchemist as the one instance of Vancian casting (that is, not just preparing your spells for the day ahead of time, but also preparing how many of each individual spell) where it made sense.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Listening to the to stream, Mark Seifter does specify that some Classes will get bonus Focus so they don't need to focus on Charisma (pun intended). He refers specifically to spellcasters (like Wizards) but he also mentions Monks on the list (specifically noting that the idea of a high Wis/high Cha Monk seems cool), and they are spellcasters in terms of Spell Point stuff, so I'd be shocked if they don't get something (it'd be easy to have you get bonus Focus equal to Wis when you take your initial Ki Power).

It does sound like any such bonuses will be on top of Charisma rather than replacing it, but I have no real problem with that.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

These changes sound good. Resonance as written and "evolve into a Half-Orc at level 5" were two of my biggest gripes with the initial release of the rules.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
I'm sorry I'm just not a fan of PF2 Alchemist having everything tied to a pool. But that's for another topic.
Well, the PF1 alchemist also had their stuff tied to pools it's just that one of them was spell slots, and it never made sense for the alchemist to be a spellcaster. Besides, tracking "bombs left" as separate from "extracts" separate from "do I have a mutagen handy" was more things to track anyway.

I think I like the pool, but I am starting to wonder if it would be best to pick like, one or two of their formulas at the start of the day (maybe debuffed) and be able to make them for free with quick alchemy. As long as it isn't limited to Bombs, that is.


I just realized that the alchemist is more like a psionicist then a wizard. >.> think about it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Lightning Raven wrote:
Ediwir wrote:

That bit was copypasted straight from the chat, where some dcs were picking up stray questions.

It seems like the idea of removing +1 weapons and adding damage dice from character level/proficiencies was not very well received in the surveys. So, probably won’t happen and we’ll keep mandatory items.

People that think tying damage die to magical weapons is a good ideas didn't think through what are the ramifications of it. Martial characters will only have one level-appropriated weapon and every other back up weapon will simply be way too weak to be even a terrible option. Imagine not having option to change your weapon damage type just because your backup is so far behind the curve that doesn't matter if it's supposed to be more effective because the lack of dmg die is not enough to warrant a change. This is purely mechanic.

But imagine a world where all martial characters are just people with good weapons and some mundane skill? They are just regular fighters without their magical sticks. It kinda take away the idea of being a legendary martial character with unparalleled skill and beyond human capabilities.

All things considered, I'd suggest that something like the Automatic Bonus Progression of Pathfinder Unchained is dramatically easier to implement in Pathfinder 2... and may be a solution for groups that wish to make damage dice a function of character rather than loot.

I'd suggest something like:
Armor: At 3rd level, a character can attune to a single suit of armor, causing to gain a +1 potency bonus to AC and saving throws. At 7th level and every 4 levels thereafter, the potency bonus increases by 1. The character can change which armor they're bonded with when they complete their daily preparations.

Weapons: At 4th level a character can attune to a single weapon, granting it a +1 potency bonus to attack rolls, and increasing the damage by one die. At 8th level, and every 4 levels thereafter, the potency bonus of their primary weapon increases by 1, and the character can attune to an additional weapon with a potency bonus one less than the previous, up to a maximum of five weapons (+5, +4, +3, +2 and +1) at 20th level. The character can change which weapons they are bonded with when they complete their daily preparations.

Wealth by Level: A character using the above progression reduces the number of magic items they're expected to possess by the highest and lowest level item. E.g. if a 9th level character would normally have one x 8th, two x 7th, one x 6th and two x 5th, they instead have two x 7th, one x 6th and one x 5th. Yes, I appreciate the above progression is 'better' than the default.

That being said, it is quite possible Paizo will roll out something like the Automatic Bonus Progression for Pathfinder 2 themselves... just not in the Core Rulebook.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

That's a very roundabout way solving this. There's no need to have an "automatic bonus progression" if the system keeps behaving consistently as it does for every other level besides those where it "expects" (More like demands) the PC's to have those items. If they expect +1 Potency rune or the character buying a Potency Item, then it's just a matter of baking the numbers in the already baked numbers! Why have a +2 spike just to force character buying items? If this is an unchangeable gap, then give the PCs the bonuses at the expected level. For example, in Starfinder, at level 3 characters gain "Weapon Specialization" which allows them to add their level to damage, it's not a 100% good example, but why not give a feature at the expected level that increase the saving throws or award proficient characters with more die to their weapons?

Being attuned to a single weapon or armor keeping the restriction while shifting the power from the weapon to the character. You'll still not be able to use backup weapons and will only be a fighter that can use your favorite stick.

To me, they just need to restructure the proficiency system and award the potency effects (extra die, bonus to skills and saving throws) at the level they deemed appropriated instead of taxing players with buying their intended items just to make the math fit.

In short, make the math work without presuming the PC's will be obligated to buy certain items. Remove the illusion of choice already, it's already time.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:

Glad someone posted this. I watched it last night but had other things going on, so didn't feel comfortable posting a summary that might be wrong. Surprised so few replies, as, at least as described, this seems to resolve a significant issue for 2E.

Kind of surprised not more replies though.

It may have to do with people like me, who aren't really aware of which streams to watch, or where to watch them.

I usually go to these boards for information. I prefer the written word as most of times the spoken english can seem be a bit ambiguious for a not native speaker.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

*looking over list*

Hmm, that sounds interesting... oh that's an interesting direction to take that... I wonder how that will-

Quote:
Alchemists are decoupled from Resonance / Focus and instead get a number of reagents based on lv+int with which they can use their features.

*incomprehensible babbling of glee*


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quandary wrote:
ErichAD wrote:

Maybe this is the question they're referring to?

Quote:
I would prefer no potency on weapons and armor at all. Attack roll bonuses and AC bonuses would come from item quality, damage would come from my character's inherent martial ability, and any necessary saving throw bonuses could come from elsewhere.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I answered that in negative, although I have posted here how weapon damage dice increases SHOULD be scaled based on character Level/Proficiency (die TYPE based on weapon type). I don't have problem with attack bonuses and SOME damage coming from weapon magic (flaming, other effects), and I don't have problem with armor magic boosting AC, and I don't strongly care either way but would be happy with normal enhancement Save bonuses being tied to character.

But that question was vague & convoluted enough I didn't fully understand what it was talking about, and couldn't specifically address each issue individually, so I'm pretty sure I answered negative to over-all question. I'm really horrified if Paizo is using that poll question to determine design.

After reading that question, it seems like the only safe answer IS negative, because it could be read as "you're taking magic items away, entirely" on one end. Plus, it is a number of questions put into one, as others have said.

It's incredibly easy to write leading questions by mistake. or unclear ones. Here are a few:

Q version A: Would you prefer characters to be more powerful on their own, or would you prefer them to rely on magic items for that power?

Q version B: Would you prefer to see less powerful MIs?

Q version C: Would you like to see less reliance on MIs?

Q version D: ...

Perhaps the question could be presented again? How would you phrase it?


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Personally, I like the current Potency/Property Rune system. It seems like these changes are moving in the direction of "everyone is a spellcaster", and I don't like that.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ed Reppert wrote:
Personally, I like the current Potency/Property Rune system. It seems like these changes are moving in the direction of "everyone is a spellcaster", and I don't like that.

If they do what I think they should, there would be no potency at all, the martial characters will inherently be good with their weapons to the point of becoming legendary, without any aid from magic. Pure skill, regardless of how magical and fancy their weapons are. If they pick up a training sword, they'll definitely beat the s+$! out of an inferior fighter with a legit sword.

The problem with the current system is exactly the opposite. Martials only progress by acquiring new swords, without these swords they can't slay anything after a while. If you take away his magical weapon, he'll be just a random NPC guard with fancy clothes in terms of skill and power. Couple that with the fact that these runes are really expensive and you're required by the system to have a +5 weapon by end game, this means that if the GM is playing following the rules, your character will have one of these at best with every back up weapon being wildly inferior. No more changes to hammers for their bludgeoning damage, no more changes to composite bows for ranged backup. No more thrown spears. No more versatility. You only hit with your best weapon, otherwise you better not even be hitting at all.


I don't know if it has been proposed already, but... what about using Focus to heighten spells to max level?


The Once and Future Kai wrote:
Ediwir wrote:
New stream is out, here's the summary

Thanks for the summary! I tried to watch it but also preparing for a session (which also meant cleaning up the house) so I barely caught most of it.

Ediwir wrote:
-Resonance will be restricted to certain worn item (flat amount of 10).

Not sure why they even call it Resonance at this point. Just say everyone has 10 magical item slots. Remove a layer of complication.

Ediwir wrote:
-Focus will combine the current spell point pools and the consumable-resonance into one (Cha based, read ahead)

Thank goodness that they're ditching the name "Spell Points." I'm a big fan of moving to a more universal/less confusing name.

Also - haha - for the Microsoft PowerPoints joke. Poor Dreamscarred Press.

Ediwir wrote:
-You can use Focus either to use your class powers or to supercharge consumables/items.

Not a fan of supercharging consumables. I could get behind supercharging worn items but consumables seems like a ton more reference bloat.

Ediwir wrote:
-Active items do not cost Resonance and have daily charges, but can be overused with Focus to gain additional uses or effects

Ugh. Not a fan of tracking daily charges. That was a thing I liked about Resonance.

Ediwir wrote:
-Other benefits could be additional duration, wider area, extra effects, higher damage/healing and so on

Hmm.

Ediwir wrote:
-Each Ancestry gets one baseline Focus point (Gnomes get 2) plus their Charisma, plus possible bonuses from class features (such as Wizard's Arcane Bond).

Man, they are really loving on Gnomes lately.

Ediwir wrote:
-Alchemists are decoupled from Resonance / Focus and instead get a number of reagents based on lv+int with which they can use their features.

Hmm. I'll ask our group's Alchemist what he thinks. He's been loving it as is (which is surprising based on survey/forum feedback I've seen).

Ediwir wrote:
-Wands will become
...

I wouldn't say they ignored it... They said upfront they wanted to focus on questions about resonance. Also, I *think* they have addressed the overlap before and said the sorcerer isn't taking the place of the oracle. It's in the top two non-core classes and almost made it into the playtest. I'm sure we will get the actual class, and it will have stuff to make it distinct from the sorcerer. (Probably using class feats with a similar feel as revelations, plus casting on a bard progression.) If there's room for the bard and sorcerer, there's room for the oracle.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Lightning Raven wrote:
Ed Reppert wrote:
Personally, I like the current Potency/Property Rune system. It seems like these changes are moving in the direction of "everyone is a spellcaster", and I don't like that.

If they do what I think they should, there would be no potency at all, the martial characters will inherently be good with their weapons to the point of becoming legendary, without any aid from magic. Pure skill, regardless of how magical and fancy their weapons are. If they pick up a training sword, they'll definitely beat the s&&* out of an inferior fighter with a legit sword.

The problem with the current system is exactly the opposite. Martials only progress by acquiring new swords, without these swords they can't slay anything after a while. If you take away his magical weapon, he'll be just a random NPC guard with fancy clothes in terms of skill and power. Couple that with the fact that these runes are really expensive and you're required by the system to have a +5 weapon by end game, this means that if the GM is playing following the rules, your character will have one of these at best with every back up weapon being wildly inferior. No more changes to hammers for their bludgeoning damage, no more changes to composite bows for ranged backup. No more thrown spears. No more versatility. You only hit with your best weapon, otherwise you better not even be hitting at all.

it's even sillier than that. Said martial will still have his STR and his proficiency. He'll be hitting things a lot, and doing effectively next to no damage with how much HP stuff has at higher level.

The Wizard of equal level standing beside him with a +4 staff will be a more effective martial character despite less proficiency and lower STR (although not that much lower given how the system encourages you to bump every stat as you approach high level), due entirely to just how much damage the +4 on the staff does.

This system makes martials entirely dependent on magic equipment, more so than in 1e. I don't know what people actually want, but when I hear someone say "Fighters shouldn't be magical", I don't come to the conclusion that they really mean "Fighters should be totally reliant on magic to be not terrible at fighting."


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Someone in another thread came up with the idea of having potency runes be equipped to characters instead of weapons.

I cannot say enough how much I think this is a brilliant idea as a compromise.


Why not both? Proficiency adds bonus damage die and magic adds bonus damage die, but they don't stack? This let's Fighters be super awesome Weapon Masters and let's Wizards still benefit from having a magic weapon.

Though I'd double down on the argument that Monks should be Legendary at Unarmed if this were the case.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
MaxAstro wrote:

Someone in another thread came up with the idea of having potency runes be equipped to characters instead of weapons.

I cannot say enough how much I think this is a brilliant idea as a compromise.

Hard pass. That might work for certain stories and settings, but I don't want "There's no magic weapons/items, I make them magical by being me/enhancing me" to be the default.


Raynulf wrote:
Lightning Raven wrote:
Ediwir wrote:

That bit was copypasted straight from the chat, where some dcs were picking up stray questions.

It seems like the idea of removing +1 weapons and adding damage dice from character level/proficiencies was not very well received in the surveys. So, probably won’t happen and we’ll keep mandatory items.

People that think tying damage die to magical weapons is a good ideas didn't think through what are the ramifications of it. Martial characters will only have one level-appropriated weapon and every other back up weapon will simply be way too weak to be even a terrible option. Imagine not having option to change your weapon damage type just because your backup is so far behind the curve that doesn't matter if it's supposed to be more effective because the lack of dmg die is not enough to warrant a change. This is purely mechanic.

But imagine a world where all martial characters are just people with good weapons and some mundane skill? They are just regular fighters without their magical sticks. It kinda take away the idea of being a legendary martial character with unparalleled skill and beyond human capabilities.

All things considered, I'd suggest that something like the Automatic Bonus Progression of Pathfinder Unchained is dramatically easier to implement in Pathfinder 2... and may be a solution for groups that wish to make damage dice a function of character rather than loot.

I'd suggest something like:
Armor: At 3rd level, a character can attune to a single suit of armor, causing to gain a +1 potency bonus to AC and saving throws. At 7th level and every 4 levels thereafter, the potency bonus increases by 1. The character can change which armor they're bonded with when they complete their daily preparations.

Weapons: At 4th level a character can attune to a single weapon, granting it a +1 potency bonus to attack rolls, and increasing the damage by one die. At 8th level, and every 4 levels thereafter,...

In PF1 it was needed because the game math presumably expected you to have these bonuses because of how it was originally designed, it was just a "patch". You wouldn't need ABP if enemies and skill checks didn't become randomly harder at those levels to account for you having them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Rysky wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:

Someone in another thread came up with the idea of having potency runes be equipped to characters instead of weapons.

I cannot say enough how much I think this is a brilliant idea as a compromise.

Hard pass. That might work for certain stories and settings, but I don't want "There's no magic weapons/items, I make them magical by being me/enhancing me" to be the default.

To clarify, property runes would still be a factor of the weapon, not the character.

Paizo Employee Designer

For those who want to see the rules, the blog and documents are up now!


With Focus now being implemented, does that mean Channel Energy now has to compete with magic items, Domain powers, and so on, because it's all being rolled into one resource?

51 to 100 of 110 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Game Master Rules / Magic Items / Paizo stream: Resonance, Focus, Items and (!) Class Powers. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.