Slot Restrictions, Resonance. Are any magic item restrictions relevant anymore?


General Discussion

1 to 50 of 153 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The "1.7" update mentioned something ambiguous, "Resonance is completely gone," followed by something vague to the effect of, "Except magic item restriction."

It sounded to me like resonance was only going to exist to serve as a limit on how many magic items you could equip at once, a replacement to the slot system of PF1. It may sound that way to me, because my group was already house ruling that in our PF2 campaign, but is that what the rest of you heard and interpreted?

This raises a second question now: Does PF2 even need a system of magic item restriction anymore?

Bonuses don't stack. That already prevents someone with four +1 rings from gaining more than +1. What's the problem with letting someone benefit from four magic rings? They could even be wearing two on the same finger if they fit. How is that different from a belt, a necklace, and two rings? What would be the point of restricting magic item use at all in this system?

Special (art pet peeve) note: Sure, you could wear four magic belts. Why would that be a problem other than looking ridiculous? After all, the monk in the class section of PF1 is wearing SEVEN belts. Yeesh!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

They were trying it in the focus playtest where Resonance was changed to simply "you can equip X magic items". Sounds like that part survives. In which case it does let you wear four rings if you want, out of your X items. X = 10 in the playtest and that seems likely to survive.

As for if some limit should exist? I think so. Having someone wearing 37 small items for various activate or other effects would slow down play dramatically and likely become optimal if its doable.

Making people make choices on which items they want to use in a given day is an interesting choice without the big six, and I think that has value still.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tridus wrote:
As for if some limit should exist? I think so. Having someone wearing 37 small items for various activate or other effects would slow down play dramatically and likely become optimal if its doable.

Aside from haste, you don't get more than 3 actions per round. I don't see how it could slow down play. Do you have an example?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The DM of wrote:
Tridus wrote:
As for if some limit should exist? I think so. Having someone wearing 37 small items for various activate or other effects would slow down play dramatically and likely become optimal if its doable.
Aside from haste, you don't get more than 3 actions per round. I don't see how it could slow down play. Do you have an example?

More choice, more items to look up for the effect etc. However I don't see the extra time as the primary concern, but rather 1/day items that you own multiple copies of.

So some limit, say 10, seems to benefit the game by making you make choices regarding equipment. For some tables this might be too limited, but it also seems like the number could be house-ruled to something else without breaking the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nettah wrote:

More choice, more items to look up for the effect etc. However I don't see the extra time as the primary concern, but rather 1/day items that you own multiple copies of.

So some limit, say 10, seems to benefit the game by making you make choices regarding equipment.

There are lots of ways to limit resources in the game. Can you give an example of an item that would cause this problem?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The DM of wrote:
Tridus wrote:
As for if some limit should exist? I think so. Having someone wearing 37 small items for various activate or other effects would slow down play dramatically and likely become optimal if its doable.
Aside from haste, you don't get more than 3 actions per round. I don't see how it could slow down play. Do you have an example?

When something comes up and I start looking through four pages of activatable items to see which one I want to use now. That takes much, much longer than if I have 10 items for the day.

It will get progressively worse as splatbooks add more items, as well. Some kind of limit forces that choice at the start of the day and forces some choice in what you keep vs what you sell, as opposed to decking yourself out in 47 trinkets.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Gold cost has always been the most effective way of limiting the power of magical items. Body slot designations are also a great way to do it. There was never a reason to reinvent the wheel with PF2.


The DM of wrote:
Nettah wrote:

More choice, more items to look up for the effect etc. However I don't see the extra time as the primary concern, but rather 1/day items that you own multiple copies of.

So some limit, say 10, seems to benefit the game by making you make choices regarding equipment.

There are lots of ways to limit resources in the game. Can you give an example of an item that would cause this problem?

Well it's hard to know exactly what could become a problem, since items haven't been changed to account for no resonance, so how there effect looks now is unknown. But in general all items that let's you use them a number of time per days are balanced towards this being a limited resource (currently with resonance), removing this limitation might make it too strong compared to consumables.

Ring of counterspell is one of the few I can see with potential to break the game. For 925 gp + the cost of a spell you get a "free" counterspell only requiring a reaction. If there is nothing preventing you from using 50 of those (except gold) you can really amass insane spell defense without the highest cost.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Your interpretation is (probably) correct. Also, I do think it is needed, if there is absolutely no limit, you could end up with high-level characters having to remeber one billion different bonuses, active abilities, etc. Yes, you can't stack item bonuses to the same thing anymore, but there are still tons of items involving different stats, abilities, etc. Also, even if you think that isn't true right now, it's good for future-proofing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Greg.Everham wrote:
Gold cost has always been the most effective way of limiting the power of magical items. Body slot designations are also a great way to do it. There was never a reason to reinvent the wheel with PF2.

Personally I just like the simplicity of 10 items you can be invested in rather than using body slots, but for a lot of tables it might boil down to one and the same.

I do however think a limit is needed to not let any item simply be valued as benefit/gold alone, but rather come with an opportunity cost as well. Otherwise stacking tons of low-cost high value items would always be used. Like getting 5 different rings of lesser resistance before upgrading one to a standard version.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Well, even with the prior change you still had to invest resonance and track how many things you'd invested throughout the day, right?

Now instead of "You've equipped X items today, you can't switch any more out until you rest."

it's "You can equip X magic items at one time."

At least, that's what I thought.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nettah wrote:
The DM of wrote:
Can you give an example of an item that would cause this problem?

Well it's hard to know exactly what could become a problem, since items haven't been changed to account for no resonance, so how there effect looks now is unknown. But in general all items that let's you use them a number of time per days are balanced towards this being a limited resource (currently with resonance), removing this limitation might make it too strong compared to consumables.

Ring of counterspell is one of the few I can see with potential to break the game. For 925 gp + the cost of a spell you get a "free" counterspell only requiring a reaction. If there is nothing preventing you from using 50 of those (except gold) you can really amass insane spell defense without the highest cost.

You came up with one example that would require 50,000 gold pieces. That's a massive limiting factor. It would give you great temporary spell defense but no defense versus for example a +3 great axe. That's not a realistic example to call for a limit on magic items worn at once.

That's what I'm asking for. How could it be abused? Costing 50k in gold is not abusible in a normal campaign.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You keep asking for examples and keep getting them. So lets try this: Why would it be better if the game allowed someone to simultaneously use 37 magic items?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't see any problems with it. Why would I introduce a limit? I'm not giving my players that many magic items each. I'm not giving them time or resources to craft or buy that many. I don't have anyone trying to play ridiculously. If you introduce a mechanic or support it, you should have a reason. The burden isn't on me questioning its purpose. The burden is on substantiating it.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
The DM of wrote:
Nettah wrote:
The DM of wrote:
Can you give an example of an item that would cause this problem?

Well it's hard to know exactly what could become a problem, since items haven't been changed to account for no resonance, so how there effect looks now is unknown. But in general all items that let's you use them a number of time per days are balanced towards this being a limited resource (currently with resonance), removing this limitation might make it too strong compared to consumables.

Ring of counterspell is one of the few I can see with potential to break the game. For 925 gp + the cost of a spell you get a "free" counterspell only requiring a reaction. If there is nothing preventing you from using 50 of those (except gold) you can really amass insane spell defense without the highest cost.

You came up with one example that would require 50,000 gold pieces. That's a massive limiting factor. It would give you great temporary spell defense but no defense versus for example a +3 great axe. That's not a realistic example to call for a limit on magic items worn at once.

That's what I'm asking for. How could it be abused? Costing 50k in gold is not abusible in a normal campaign.

Then how many does it take to be abusable? There are items costing upwards of 70.000 gold, does that stack up with 73 rings of counterspell? Would you ever go for a standard ring of energy resistance over 4 lesser ring of energy resistance (unless you had directly planned to go to that elemental plane)?

The issue is that currently magic items are balanced towards a limitation, removing this limitation hurts the balance. So how do you rebalance them? A certain value/gold would have to be followed for all items, otherwise a lot of items would never be used. However this would either make lesser magic items much more expensive (not fun) or let more powerful items become cheaper (thus available to characters of far lower level, which could hurt game balance). This could again be "fixed" by not letting you characters gain gold at an exponential rate, but what is the monetary incentive to fight tougher enemies then?

So my argument in short is: Yes limits on magic items are needed to balance the game. And limiting the amount of permanent magic items a character have access to is the best way to do this rather than using only gold as a limitation.

Now you might not agree with this, and for most tables it might not actually matter at all, but I think the same could be set about pretty much every effort to make the game more balanced.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The DM of wrote:
I don't see any problems with it. Why would I introduce a limit? I'm not giving my players that many magic items each. I'm not giving them time or resources to craft or buy that many. I don't have anyone trying to play ridiculously. If you introduce a mechanic or support it, you should have a reason. The burden isn't on me questioning its purpose. The burden is on substantiating it.

Well you do introduce a limit if you limit the amount of items they can buy, this however is just a different limit than the one Paizo included in their ruleset. But in your version there is hardly any incentive to sell magic items, so after a certain amounts of levels it would be likely that your characters would run around with tons of different items.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ah yes, I do have a limit - sensibility. It's one paizo has as well. They reference it as wealth per level. This varies by table, but they have the concept. Why use a limit on top of that?

Why use four lesser rings instead of a standard? Because they don't stack. I've yet to see one example of how magic items need to be limited beyond the wealth concept.


The DM of wrote:

Ah yes, I do have a limit - sensibility. It's one paizo has as well. They reference it as wealth per level. This varies by table, but they have the concept. Why use a limit on top of that?

Why use four lesser rings instead of a standard? Because they don't stack. I've yet to see one example of how magic items need to be limited beyond the wealth concept.

I think the biggest thing is that some items might amass benefits from others at higher cost(Similar to a belt of magnificience they could never have a belt of magnificience if wearing 3 other items is just cheaper). But i do see a problem with the christmas tree... I once saw a guy talking about how he missed his solar system... His character in pathfinder had like 50 or so Ioun Stones.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There are a lot of "mights and maybes" on this thread.

Where's the real examples?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The DM of wrote:

Ah yes, I do have a limit - sensibility. It's one paizo has as well. They reference it as wealth per level. This varies by table, but they have the concept. Why use a limit on top of that?

Why use four lesser rings instead of a standard? Because they don't stack. I've yet to see one example of how magic items need to be limited beyond the wealth concept.

As stated because currently they have balanced items around resonance along with gold cost. And balanced item with body slots in PF1.

I know they don't stack for the same element, but nothing is stopping you from getting a lesser ring of fire, cold, acid and electricity. So having resistance 5 to four elements is arguably better than resistance 10 in a single one.

And I have no idea how your limits regarding what PCs can buy actually is, so whether or not it's sensible is hard for me to say. But if your campaign is in Golarion I would expect for the players to quite easily being able to abuse low-cost magic items and buy a bunch the second they hit a large city. I am not saying they are doing this or that you would expect most groups to try and break the game, just that a limit on magic gear seems quite reasonable and prevent this for all tables and not just tables that have kinda house-ruled in a sort of limitation of their own (like yours).

It's hard to argue that the rules can't be bend towards a certain power gaming style if you don't allow this style at your table, but you have not answered whether you think a 70.000 item is equal in strength to 73 rings of counterspell and that sort of shenanigans.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A 700,000 sp item or 700,000 sp's of items is nonsense. It makes as much sense as a horse sized duck or 1000 duck-sized horses duking it out.

I expect a GM to challenge her players and reward them in a manner befitting everyone's expectations of fun. I don't currently have a plan to use resonance or item limits in my homebrew PF2 world. Open invitation to people who have a real example demonstrating some need for a limit system beyond resources.

Nonsense doesn't count. Investing an obscene amount of money in blocking every spell... as I mentioned, it won't block an axe. That's how that player would get challenged... but I wouldn't advise them to go that far anyway. It would be absurd.

"37 items confuses me." Don't keep 37 items then. Keep what you have a plan to manage and use effectively. That's on you, not the system to tell you not to be ridiculous.

My players have bigger goals than "upgrade my gear with every penny I have!" They want to world-influence and invest in kingdoms. Magic items are not their #1 focus like many people in the PF1 PFS world heavily distorted.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
The DM of wrote:

A 700,000 sp item or 700,000 sp's of items is nonsense. It makes as much sense as a horse sized duck or 1000 duck-sized horses duking it out.

I expect a GM to challenge her players and reward them in a manner befitting everyone's expectations of fun. I don't currently have a plan to use resonance or item limits in my homebrew PF2 world. Open invitation to people who have a real example demonstrating some need for a limit system beyond resources.

Nonsense doesn't count. Investing an obscene amount of money in blocking every spell... as I mentioned, it won't block an axe. That's how that player would get challenged... but I wouldn't advise them to go that far anyway. It would be absurd.

"37 items confuses me." Don't keep 37 items then. Keep what you have a plan to manage and use effectively. That's on you, not the system to tell you not to be ridiculous.

My players have bigger goals than "upgrade my gear with every penny I have!" They want to world-influence and invest in kingdoms. Magic items are not their #1 focus like many people in the PF1 PFS world heavily distorted.

What are you trying to accomplish with this post? In your original post you asked the question whether or not we thought that a limitation needs to exist besides the item cost. Now I have in several post raised the problems with not having limitations, and your respond is either that is not realistic (why you never mention) or that your table doesn't play according to the rules and you limit the amount of items players get by what you give them and what they are allowed to buy.

So are you at all interested in getting your question answered by anyone? Do you just want people to know that they could remove limits, change limits whatever and it wouldn't matter to you, because you play by your own house-rule regardless, like what's the point?

I don't necessarily power game myself, but in any world where magic isn't limited I would expect intelligent foes to do so to a reasonable extend. That would include a necklace of rings of counterspell or just your hands filled to the brim with them, maybe not 73 but spending 30k gold to be immune to several castings of the most common spells would more than be worth it for any intelligent villain.

And your argument that my 700,000 SP item or 700,000 sp's worth of items is nonsense, why is that? A pc at level 20 is likely going to be have the option of making this choice, so it's a very real question. Even the rings of resistance argument you chose to skip because it didn't fit your argument that loads of items is just ridiculous and that Paizo shouldn't be concerned with making balanced rules because your table plays by house-rules that make the rules borderline obsolete.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nettah wrote:
Greg.Everham wrote:
Gold cost has always been the most effective way of limiting the power of magical items. Body slot designations are also a great way to do it. There was never a reason to reinvent the wheel with PF2.

Personally I just like the simplicity of 10 items you can be invested in rather than using body slots, but for a lot of tables it might boil down to one and the same.

I do however think a limit is needed to not let any item simply be valued as benefit/gold alone, but rather come with an opportunity cost as well. Otherwise stacking tons of low-cost high value items would always be used. Like getting 5 different rings of lesser resistance before upgrading one to a standard version.

"Low cost, high value." You mean priced incorrectly.

There are already checks against that cheese. Bonuses don't stack. Opportunity costs exist in the form of how an item is activated. There's all this work put into making Resonance not suck, when the simple fact was that it was unnecessary.


Greg.Everham wrote:
Nettah wrote:
Greg.Everham wrote:
Gold cost has always been the most effective way of limiting the power of magical items. Body slot designations are also a great way to do it. There was never a reason to reinvent the wheel with PF2.

Personally I just like the simplicity of 10 items you can be invested in rather than using body slots, but for a lot of tables it might boil down to one and the same.

I do however think a limit is needed to not let any item simply be valued as benefit/gold alone, but rather come with an opportunity cost as well. Otherwise stacking tons of low-cost high value items would always be used. Like getting 5 different rings of lesser resistance before upgrading one to a standard version.

"Low cost, high value." You mean priced incorrectly.

There are already checks against that cheese. Bonuses don't stack. Opportunity costs exist in the form of how an item is activated. There's all this work put into making Resonance not suck, when the simple fact was that it was unnecessary.

Yes priced incorrectly if there is no longer a limit on magic items. OPs question was whether we think a limit is needed besides the item cost, which I do because as I mentioned currently without the opportunity cost items are priced wrongly, and in another post I mentioned how hard it would be to balance solely around gold while still making a fun system.

EDIT: Regarding Resonance I think the purpose of the original Resonance were more about limiting consumables like wands of CLW, but that idea was later scrapped it seems. So they seem to be going for a 10 or X amount of invested magic items instead of doing body slots as in PF1, which is what I applaud as necessary. And I do find X amount of invested magic items simpler and therefore superior for this system to body slots.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm with The DM of and Greg.Everham. As long as magic items have sensible prices wealth per level is the only limiter you need on items. If a player has 'option paralysis', this kind of gme really isn't for them as you can have 37 feats, spells, ect already they have to deal with is they opt to so why focus on items?

I think I'd ask why question if people will abuse items when you could ask why the game allows/makes abusable items in the first place.

Resonance: IMO it's just an effort to make cha more relevant. With the new method of character creation, I'm not seeing why it has to be relevant past skill usage/casting stat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Greg.Everham wrote:
Gold cost has always been the most effective way of limiting the power of magical items. Body slot designations are also a great way to do it. There was never a reason to reinvent the wheel with PF2.

Body slots had some real problems. Wearing 3 rings should not be any more impossible than 2 rings and some bracelets. It also limits design space because

"Your body can only handle so much magic" makes more sense, and where slots DID make sense (like only wearing one pair of boots) still applies.

Body slots also limited the design space because certain must have items like the Cloak of Resistance meant slots weren't really available. This isn't completely fixed as is, since some items are still mutually exclusive, but condensing the big 6 helped a lot.

I think making the items scale off level and charisma made a lot of sense lore wise, but it does add another thing to track. Having it be a flat amount like 10 is easier, especially because you know exactly how much real estate you need for it on your character sheet.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
The DM of wrote:

A 700,000 sp item or 700,000 sp's of items is nonsense. It makes as much sense as a horse sized duck or 1000 duck-sized horses duking it out.

I expect a GM to challenge her players and reward them in a manner befitting everyone's expectations of fun. I don't currently have a plan to use resonance or item limits in my homebrew PF2 world. Open invitation to people who have a real example demonstrating some need for a limit system beyond resources.

Nonsense doesn't count. Investing an obscene amount of money in blocking every spell... as I mentioned, it won't block an axe. That's how that player would get challenged... but I wouldn't advise them to go that far anyway. It would be absurd.

"37 items confuses me." Don't keep 37 items then. Keep what you have a plan to manage and use effectively. That's on you, not the system to tell you not to be ridiculous.

My players have bigger goals than "upgrade my gear with every penny I have!" They want to world-influence and invest in kingdoms. Magic items are not their #1 focus like many people in the PF1 PFS world heavily distorted.

You've gotten several. You keep claiming to want examples and then dismiss every example as "nonsense because reasons", when your own argument comes down to "my players don't make this a problem therefore the entire rule system doesn't need it."

A couple of decades of experience in the core system PF1 is based on suggest pretty clearly that if given the option, lots of players will walk around looking like a veritable Christmas tree decorated with magic items. The original idea for Resonance didn't come out of nowhere: it came about because of how much of a problem this turned into.

If your players don't need a limit, great. Have fun. That is not sufficient justification to dismiss everyone elses experiences, including those of the Paizo developers, who clearly saw an issue worth trying to address with the amount of rules effort they put into trying to tackle it.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am going to just call it now.

Consumables are dead, they're going to end up on the chopping room floor, they are simply put, hot garbage and a waste of Gold, and Printspace in the Core Rulebook.

None of them feel good to use, they seem only to represent a way to waste money fishing for specific actions or circumstances that, quite honestly, were covered ideally by Potions and Scrolls in the past.

If consumables as a 'thing' DOES survive to the final cut, I'm confident their uses are going to open up SIGNIFICANTLY (Think a single use magic item that makes you an Expert in Athletics for 1 minute or Trained in the Longbow etc) and the cost is going to HAVE to come down. That being said it still creates a can of worms whereby Players will constantly be fishing new supplements for the most OP 1-shot items to combine together for maximum munchkiness.


Themetricsystem wrote:

I am going to just call it now.

Consumables are dead, they're going to end up on the chopping room floor, they are simply put, hot garbage and a waste of Gold, and Printspace in the Core Rulebook.

None of them feel good to use, they seem only to represent a way to waste money fishing for specific actions or circumstances that, quite honestly, were covered ideally by Potions and Scrolls in the past.

If consumables as a 'thing' DOES survive to the final cut, I'm confident their uses are going to open up SIGNIFICANTLY (Think a single use magic item that makes you an Expert in Athletics for 1 minute or Trained in the Longbow etc) and the cost is going to HAVE to come down. That being said it still creates a can of worms whereby Players will constantly be fishing new supplements for the most OP 1-shot items to combine together for maximum munchkiness.

Are you only talking about trinkets? Or do you actually believe that potions and scrolls won't be used?


The DM of wrote:

There are a lot of "mights and maybes" on this thread.

Where's the real examples?

As many of us of have played Pathfinder and previous iterations of D&D going decades back, during which these restrictions have been in place without the sky falling down, I would instead ask what are your examples of situations where it is highly detrimental that a person can wear only two rings, one pair of boots, a single necklace, and the like.

Or, please provide examples of the horror of a person not being able to utilize more than, say, 15 magical items simultaneously, regardless of position (assuming that, by the time a character's wealth could accommodate it, they could use a number of magical items limited to at least the total slots available before.) Remember, they can own more than that, just not use them at the same time.

For your own real example(s), please consider them in the framework of PF2, where the Big Six are no longer mandated. So you can wear a cloak of your choice without losing your Cloak of Resistance, one of your ring slots is no longer consumed with a Ring of Protection; your belt and head slots are likely not occupied with a stat-boosting item.

What is the disastrous consequence of limiting item usage by slots or amount in PF2, so immense and important that it needs to be enumerated within the official rules instead of just being a houserule?

Liberty's Edge

Nettah wrote:
Themetricsystem wrote:

I am going to just call it now.

Consumables are dead, they're going to end up on the chopping room floor, they are simply put, hot garbage and a waste of Gold, and Printspace in the Core Rulebook.

None of them feel good to use, they seem only to represent a way to waste money fishing for specific actions or circumstances that, quite honestly, were covered ideally by Potions and Scrolls in the past.

If consumables as a 'thing' DOES survive to the final cut, I'm confident their uses are going to open up SIGNIFICANTLY (Think a single use magic item that makes you an Expert in Athletics for 1 minute or Trained in the Longbow etc) and the cost is going to HAVE to come down. That being said it still creates a can of worms whereby Players will constantly be fishing new supplements for the most OP 1-shot items to combine together for maximum munchkiness.

Are you only talking about trinkets? Or do you actually believe that potions and scrolls won't be used?

Basically Trinkets of all sorts are what I'm predicting to simply disappear. They don't really add much in the way of interesting things to do to the game, at BEST they allow a PC to be marginally better at something they're already good at ONCE. While there is a history in the last 20 or so years of implementing neat 1-shot items like this to various Wondrous effects, the PF2 PT versions of them are watered down with the only exceptions being the Magic Items from the Legacy Content such as the Tree/Boat Tokens and the Necklace of Fireballs.

Scrolls and Potions have a LONG legacy that goes back far beyond D&D, while Trinkets.... not so much.

They would be better served by devoting that space in the CRB to some SOLID Magic Item Crafting Rules and by replacing Trinkets with more expensive versions of themselves that function X/day.


I suppose that the few key limitations in the system (potent item, shoe trait and the like) are indeed sufficient to avoid christmas tree characters when combined with the nonstacking nature of bonuses, but I will still miss that flexible pool of magic item uses that we were hinted at back when Resonance was first announced.

As for trinkets, hey, they aren't bad as an idea. They just have no oomph.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Themetricsystem wrote:
Nettah wrote:
Themetricsystem wrote:

I am going to just call it now.

Consumables are dead, they're going to end up on the chopping room floor, they are simply put, hot garbage and a waste of Gold, and Printspace in the Core Rulebook.

None of them feel good to use, they seem only to represent a way to waste money fishing for specific actions or circumstances that, quite honestly, were covered ideally by Potions and Scrolls in the past.

If consumables as a 'thing' DOES survive to the final cut, I'm confident their uses are going to open up SIGNIFICANTLY (Think a single use magic item that makes you an Expert in Athletics for 1 minute or Trained in the Longbow etc) and the cost is going to HAVE to come down. That being said it still creates a can of worms whereby Players will constantly be fishing new supplements for the most OP 1-shot items to combine together for maximum munchkiness.

Are you only talking about trinkets? Or do you actually believe that potions and scrolls won't be used?

Basically Trinkets of all sorts are what I'm predicting to simply disappear. They don't really add much in the way of interesting things to do to the game, at BEST they allow a PC to be marginally better at something they're already good at ONCE. While there is a history in the last 20 or so years of implementing neat 1-shot items like this to various Wondrous effects, the PF2 PT versions of them are watered down with the only exceptions being the Magic Items from the Legacy Content such as the Tree/Boat Tokens and the Necklace of Fireballs.

Scrolls and Potions have a LONG legacy that goes back far beyond D&D, while Trinkets.... not so much.

They would be better served by devoting that space in the CRB to some SOLID Magic Item Crafting Rules and by replacing Trinkets with more expensive versions of themselves that function X/day.

Yep, no one (general statement, not meant to be stress-tested) wants to devote a permanent portion of their WBL to something that might accomplish nothing anyway. It's the equivalent of throwing money away. A trinket that, once activated, doesn't get used up until successfully used, is better. One that never gets permanently exhausted, even if the player goes one unfortunate adventuring day spending all of that day's uses on wasted attempts, is still even less wasted.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm content with a "no consumables" sort of game. All we've ever used as far as consumables used were CLW wands (because they were the most efficient way to heal) and the occasional scroll for "I need something that does x" situations. I figure if we replaced scrolls with "you find instructions for a ritual which does the thing" can effectively replace how we used scrolls.

I personally never liked consumables since there was always that pressure to hoard them for when you need them which I found uncomfortable.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm sorry for invoking TV Tropes.

It's called Too Awesome To Use, and while it specifically talks about high-power, high-rarity consumables, it really applies to any consumable that isn't as common and cheap as dirt (i.e., potions of healing).

Heck, I think the only reason I was able to step away from that mindset in 5E is due to there being fewer and fewer uses for gold as you go up in level. Revivify diamonds are costly, but you're not going to be using the gold for much else, so go ahead and buy them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The only consumable that needed to be dealt with was the CLW wand. The others are fine. I actually got a ton of traction out of consumables in DD. In the low level ones invisibility potions were very handy. In mid levels dust of disappearance and potions of flight and truesight were great. At high levels things taper off a bit depending on the permanent items you get (greater cloak of the bat removes the need for flight potions for example) but that’s just at high levels and situational.
Part of this may be due to the spell slot and buff spell nerfs so you can’t rely on your casters to do it for you. But at the same time shouldn’t you cover that yourself if you can?

I really like the idea of trinkets but by and large they were poorly designed in the playtest, they need to either be more powerful or less situational possibly both.
There is one trinket that I think delivered and I think it could be a good example for were the others should be at. The gallows tooth. For a rogue with precise debilitation the tooth is a cheap, single use “I win button”. Well okay more accurately it allows you to flat foot lock something no matter the circumstances.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like having a lot of magic items, but there is a point where things become silly and exploitative when you've got a few dozen 1/day items that you spam or something. A lack on any kind of upper limit for permanent items might be a bit much. But the question is, what should the limit be? In PF1 you had if I recall 12 slots. But you could also have slottless items like Ioun Stones and such. So I think the Focus Test's idea of 10 is probably a bit too few. I'd be happier with 15. 20 might be pushing it, but might be doable. I'm hoping for a set number and not a "Lets try to force Charsima to be important for everyone!" solution like Resonance. Although ways to alter the number might be nice, but only to small amounts, not making it dependent on a stat that isn't always appropriate for your build.

I do hope "adjusting items for the lack of resonance" doesn't mean "nerf them into garbage." Things like the 1d4 round invisibility potion from the Focus Test were terrible.

Trinkets were a complete miss for me. Between the cost being higher than the usefulness, the preparation time to attach them, the single use, limit of only one prepared trinket on an item and marginal utility to begin with, I just didn't see any point in even considering them. They had too many down-sides and the upside was very uninspiring.

Hopefully they'll fix the pricing for consumable items, now that they gave up on trying to solve that with the Rube Goldberg machine of Resonance. You can't use exponential pricing for something inherently linear like healing items and expect it to work out. That the True Healing Potion costing 1,200 GP is just plain insane. How could anyone think that is even close to a reasonable price? It does just over twice as much healing as the Greater Healing Potion, but costs 20 times as much. And that's not even comparing it to the lower level ones. There is the concern of action economy, but I don't think the utility of getting the healing with one potion instead of two is worth such a huge markup. Wands needed some fixing of prices too, but considering they're reworking the entire concept of wands, it's hard to tell what they're going to be like, and how the pricing should be handled.

graystone wrote:
Resonance: IMO it's just an effort to make cha more relevant. With the new method of character creation, I'm not seeing why it has to be relevant past skill usage/casting stat.

I've got to disagree. It tried to do much more than that, like half a dozen things at once, and was terrible at all of them. There was adding artificial importance of Charisma, ham-handedly dealing with the incentives caused by applying exponential pricing to healing consumables (instead of addressing that directly), replacing slots, replacing charges and uses per day (but then leaving those around anyway), limiting the total power you can get from magic items in a day and tying into the alchemist's abilities. There might have been a few other things they tried to make it do too that I'm missing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Can I abuse magic items by having a ring on all ten fingers?

This one keeps getting brought up, how unlimited rings would automatically break the game. I'm going to try it right now with a mindset of being reasonable, not having unlimited resources.

Ten Cheap Rings - 1600gp - Level:13-14


  • 245 - Ring of energy resistance, lesser: acid (res: 5)
  • 245 - Ring of energy resistance, lesser: cold (res: 5)
  • 245 - Ring of energy resistance, lesser: electricity (res: 5)
  • 245 - Ring of energy resistance, lesser: fire (res: 5)
  • 245 - Ring of energy resistance, lesser: sonic (res: 5)
  • 160 - Ring of the ram, standard (2d6 per action, 1/minute)
  • 215 - Ring of lies, standard (+2 deception, L1 ventriloquism)
  • Nothing cheap left.
  • Nothing cheap left.
  • Nothing cheap left.

Mind blowing! Just to get 7 rings and nothing else, you need the average wealth of a level 13-14 character. Someone tell me how this needs an additional limit of #magic items per character via some resonance-like mechanic. Now let's try to break the system with 10 rings:

Ten Uber Rings - 27650gp - Level:L20+


  • 4400 - Ring of energy resistance, greater: acid (res: 15)
  • 4400 - Ring of energy resistance, greater: cold (res: 15)
  • 4400 - Ring of energy resistance, greater: electricity (res: 15)
  • 4400 - Ring of energy resistance, greater: fire (res: 15)
  • 4400 - Ring of energy resistance, greater: sonic (res: 15)
  • 1950 - Ring of the ram, greater(3d6 per action, 1/minute)
  • 925 - Ring of counterspells (attempt to dispel 1 specific spell)
  • 925 - Ring of counterspells (attempt to dispel 1 specific spell)
  • 925 - Ring of counterspells (attempt to dispel 1 specific spell)
  • 925 - Ring of counterspells (attempt to dispel 1 specific spell)

I'm not sure you can afford this even at level 20 given the 11-2 player wealth table. This assumes you have no magic weapon, no magic armor, no wand, no staff, no nothing. Just ten "uber" rings. At L20 if someone hits you with lightning, it will be 100, 200, 300 points? 15 points of resistance is crap. Doing 9d6 with a ring of the ram? That's a joke compared to a magic weapon or spell. Having the chance to dispel (not immunity) 4 specific spells? Meh. Frankly, this list of magic items sucks.

I see no way to abuse even a low number of rings such as 10 in PF2 such that there is a need for a limit on how many magic items can be worn at once.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The DM of wrote:

Can I abuse magic items by having a ring on all ten fingers?

This one keeps getting brought up, how unlimited rings would automatically break the game. I'm going to try it right now with a mindset of being reasonable, not having unlimited resources.

You're not wrong in so far as *right now* there's not a ring that if stacked up 10 times would break the game. However, it does limit design space for future rings or other items to be designed. The counter to this line of logic, though, is that the design team has already prevented this by having only 2 types of bonuses that do not stack. That future-problem shall remain ignored for now, and the whole "10 rings" argument really does fall apart. Gold, as it has always been, is a severe limiter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

True, we're talking right now. Agreed on gold as the strongest limiting factor. Given what we know about the rules as they are now, I think this shows no need for additional limiting factors like 1 magic item per level or whatever the resonance-esque system is.

This exercise could be repeated with many variations, but it should continue to show that gold is a major limiter all on its own.

Still, this thread is an open invitation to prove gold wrong. Where's an example where an attainable amount of gold breaks the game and demonstrates a need for a slot or resonance based limitation system?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The DM of wrote:

Can I abuse magic items by having a ring on all ten fingers?

This one keeps getting brought up, how unlimited rings would automatically break the game. I'm going to try it right now with a mindset of being reasonable, not having unlimited resources.

Ten Cheap Rings - 1600gp - Level:13-14


  • 245 - Ring of energy resistance, lesser: acid (res: 5)
  • 245 - Ring of energy resistance, lesser: cold (res: 5)
  • 245 - Ring of energy resistance, lesser: electricity (res: 5)
  • 245 - Ring of energy resistance, lesser: fire (res: 5)
  • 245 - Ring of energy resistance, lesser: sonic (res: 5)
  • 160 - Ring of the ram, standard (2d6 per action, 1/minute)
  • 215 - Ring of lies, standard (+2 deception, L1 ventriloquism)
  • Nothing cheap left.
  • Nothing cheap left.
  • Nothing cheap left.

Mind blowing! Just to get 7 rings and nothing else, you need the average wealth of a level 13-14 character. Someone tell me how this needs an additional limit of #magic items per character via some resonance-like mechanic. Now let's try to break the system with 10 rings:

Ten Uber Rings - 27650gp - Level:L20+


  • 4400 - Ring of energy resistance, greater: acid (res: 15)
  • 4400 - Ring of energy resistance, greater: cold (res: 15)
  • 4400 - Ring of energy resistance, greater: electricity (res: 15)
  • 4400 - Ring of energy resistance, greater: fire (res: 15)
  • 4400 - Ring of energy resistance, greater: sonic (res: 15)
  • 1950 - Ring of the ram, greater(3d6 per action, 1/minute)
  • 925 - Ring of counterspells (attempt to dispel 1 specific spell)
  • 925 - Ring of counterspells (attempt to dispel 1 specific spell)
  • 925 - Ring of counterspells (attempt to dispel 1 specific spell)
  • 925 - Ring of counterspells (attempt to dispel 1 specific spell)

I'm not sure you can afford this even at level 20 given the 11-2 player wealth table. This assumes you have no magic weapon, no magic armor, no wand, no staff, no nothing....

I can't even. You are directly taking wrong information and presenting it as fact. Like how do you ever get 1600 gold worth of stuff from 1 level 12th, 2 level 11th, 1 level 10th, 2 level 9th and 1000gp which is the lowest of the two levels you emulate. (Spoilers this is closer to 8000 gp worth)

Like you even mention the table you read so how the @#&/ can the actual numbers you use be so far off.

I have time and time again compared items and I would say shown that the value from an item divided by it's cost is nowhere near a constant. If that is not the case what would ever be the argument for spending more on higher level items instead of using that gold value to get 2-3 times the effect for the same price?

I don't intend to be rude but at this point I am unsure how you can keep not answering any of the questions anyone else puts forward, yet still keep saying that you are very open to see someone show why a limit is needed. It's beyond me honestly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

1) What's the confusion? I'm adding up the prices. If you interpret the required level from 11-2 differently, feel free to offer your own.
2) Where's your example? I gave two.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The DM of wrote:

1) What's the confusion? I'm adding up the prices. If you interpret the required level from 11-2 differently, feel free to offer your own.

2) Where's your example? I gave two.

What are you adding up though? As I showed in my post a level 13 character has the starting wealth roughly equal to 8,000 gp not 1,600 as your example states.

My examples has been comparing items.
Like: Is 4x lesser ring of resistance stronger than one ring of resistance? That is 5 resistance to four elements instead of 10 resistance to a single one. (980 gp vs 975 gp)

Or what about having 5 resistance to one element and 10 resistance to the four others rather than having 15 resistance to a single one. (4,145 gp vs 4,400 gp)

Would 35 rings of counterspells and a +4 magical armor be better than a single +5 magical armor? (38,875 gp vs 40,000 gp)

And as other have mentioned this is only the playtest document, the more items you add the bigger a concern is it that a 1/day item or other items might break this math further.


Those numbers you're throwing around prove the same point. Gold is a severe limiting factor by itself. Nothing you laid out shows that without another limiting factor, the items get out of hand.

I'm in the camp that says you don't need a level or resonance-based limit on how many items you can use at once. Open call for examples that show how that could be abused still stands. I've seen none.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The DM of wrote:

Those numbers you're throwing around prove the same point. Gold is a severe limiting factor by itself. Nothing you laid out shows that without another limiting factor, the items get out of hand.

I'm in the camp that says you don't need a level or resonance-based limit on how many items you can use at once. Open call for examples that show how that could be abused still stands. I've seen none.

So you think the 3 examples I posted are all equally valuable to a character?

If that is truly what you believe I don't think it would ever be possible to prove the opposite to you. I however don't equal a spellcaster getting 1 extra point of AC and +1 to their resistance to them being close to immune to the most common high-level spells as long as they had a couple of days of downtime to ensure their rings was filled with spells.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The point of this thread is as the title says, questioning whether restrictions on magic items are relevant anymore. Gold takes care of it.

What exactly are you asking or arguing, Nettah? I'm happy to engage, but from what I have seen, you are proving the above point with each example or wandering on a tangent.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The DM of wrote:

The point of this thread is as the title says, questioning whether restrictions on magic items are relevant anymore. Gold takes care of it.

What exactly are you asking or arguing, Nettah? I'm happy to engage, but from what I have seen, you are proving the above point with each example or wandering on a tangent.

I am arguing that yes the limit is very much needed (as I have stated in multiple post).

The reason is that currently the balance of items is off, if you are going by gold alone. As I have shown in my examples, which I am not sure you agree or disagree with at all.

If you want to only go by gold it would be reasonable that items effect divided by it's cost should be close to a constant and I think there are issues with this.
Some of the issues are a likely increase of the weaker magic items cost (which reduce magic items and isn't the most fun) and either the economy breaking or the incentive to facing tougher enemies disappearing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Ok then you haven't proven that with a single example. An example would be within a gold piece amount that is reasonably attainable, and the effect would be that it breaks the game.

Or am I missing something? So far the only thing I've seen you (loosely) create an example for is three dozen rings of counterspell which are clearly a horrible option for a player who would have to be over level 20 anyway to possibly afford. I'm sorry, but that's not even close to being game breaking or reasonable.

You don't need an item limit to limit that. In your own example, gold limits it. Have anything else?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nettah wrote:
I don't intend to be rude but at this point I am unsure how you can keep not answering any of the questions anyone else puts forward, yet still keep saying that you are very open to see someone show why a limit is needed. It's beyond me honestly.

The OP's post contained a rhetorical question in which she provided the answer.

I think this type of thread is meant to elicit agreement not debate.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The DM of wrote:

Ok then you haven't proven that with a single example. An example would be within a gold piece amount that is reasonably attainable, and the effect would be that it breaks the game.

Or am I missing something? So far the only thing I've seen you (loosely) create an example for is three dozen rings of counterspell which are clearly a horrible option for a player who would have to be over level 20 anyway to possibly afford. I'm sorry, but that's not even close to being game breaking or reasonable.

You don't need an item limit to limit that. In your own example, gold limits it. Have anything else?

I can't argue with you when you continue to refuse any point I make with no in-game reason what so ever. I see all 3 examples of my earlier post as "game-breaking" to some extend, if you don't in anyway then we will never agree on this topic. I think you are reading table 11-2 wrong if you think the example with 35 rings is unreasonable in terms of gold, as stated the 35 rings is off less value than the difference between a level 15th and 19th item.

Or to take your own example is the 7 rings not better than a single ring of swimming (giving you half your land speed (after amor) as swim speed. In terms of gold value the ring of swimming is the better item.

1 to 50 of 153 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Slot Restrictions, Resonance. Are any magic item restrictions relevant anymore? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.