I have not followed developer scuttlebutt since the playtest ended but has anything been said if anything will replace the role of resonance in the final game?
Have they indicated that they will try to regulate magic items with only prices?
That seems like the worst and least interesting course of action to me but I also know that is what a lot of people clamored for and I know a lot of people besides me were actually satisfied with the PF1 item meta. I could maybe see a price-only system working for me if the game also gives good guidance to GMs for magic item purchasing/management.
I encourage people to report existing evidence and bloviate on whatever sparse evidence exists.
I believe the latest is that resonance is out for everything except a replacement for item slots. Instead of slots you can just equip 10 magic items at a time of any type that you could realistically wear with each other. And then I guess just price and crafting level limited magic item economy.
I believe the latest is that resonance is out for everything except a replacement for item slots. Instead of slots you can just equip 10 magic items at a time of any type that you could realistically wear with each other. And then I guess just price and crafting level limited magic item economy.
That does not thrill me but it is more or less what I expected. Where was that said?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I believe the latest is that resonance is out for everything except a replacement for item slots. Instead of slots you can just equip 10 magic items at a time of any type that you could realistically wear with each other. And then I guess just price and crafting level limited magic item economy.That does not thrill me but it is more or less what I expected. Where was that said?
It's in one of the Twitch streams. It's also worth noting that it's been stated elsewhere that Wands will no longer be 'spell in a can' consumables, leaving Scrolls alone in that role, which is perhaps relevant to how this will work.
As Deadman says Twitch.
There is a good thread for tracking changes going on as well: https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42i18?PF2-What-Do-We-Know#1
I had already read through that thread but I appreciate the link anyways if only for other people who want to know about this topic.
I know resonance is out but I want to know what is in~
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
We don't really know. I don't think Focus boosting items tested well enough to be used. Personally, I'd have loved it if we ditched X times per day items and had that run off Resonance instead, but I doubt that will happen given how visceral the backlash to Resonance was.
We don't really know. I don't think Focus boosting items tested well enough to be used. Personally, I'd have loved it if we ditched X times per day items and had that run off Resonance instead, but I doubt that will happen given how visceral the backlash to Resonance was.
I'm really curious to know! I'll maybe start paying a bit more attention to the paizo site again now that we are counting down to release; I'll load some coal into my hype train again.
I also liked the idea that resonance could be used as an all-purpose pool for "uses per day" items. Alas and alack~ Maybe we can get some overhauled version of the resonance rules in whatever becomes PF2's version of unchained/unearthed arcana.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also liked the idea that resonance could be used as an all-purpose pool for "uses per day" items.
I don't like all-purpose pools. Players usually end up identifying the one most useful use of the pool points, and then never use them for anything else.
GM: "Well, in this game you have a hero point pool that you can use to reroll skill checks but you must take the second roll even if it's worse, or to not die when you would normally die..."
Player: "Then I will just save them up in case I ever need to not die."
GM: "...and there are Resonance points that you can use to activate any wand or staff or magic item."
Player: "My best magic item is this wand, so I will only ever use them for that."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also liked the idea that resonance could be used as an all-purpose pool for "uses per day" items.I don't like all-purpose pools. Players usually end up identifying the one most useful use of the pool points, and then never use them for anything else.
GM: "Well, in this game you have a hero point pool that you can use to reroll skill checks but you must take the second roll even if it's worse, or to not die when you would normally die..."
Player: "Then I will just save them up in case I ever need to not die."
GM: "...and there are Resonance points that you can use to activate any wand or staff or magic item."
Player: "My best magic item is this wand, so I will only ever use them for that."
Exactly this. And in a few years time, a community meta will emerge where you'll get the same kind of push-back for using your Resonance sub-optimally as you got when you wanted to play a core monk or rogue. Gentle prods that boil down to "We're playing a somewhat more optimized campaign, if you don't make meta choices, the GM is going to have to start lowering the difficulty, and that's not what we signed up for".
There's also the subconscious acknowledgment that you're spending a resource on one thing when it could be spent on something else, which puts a damper on the coolness of using a magic item.
I'm happy Resonance is gone. I would have preferred going back to body slots, since that removes arguments about what can and cannot be worn together, but 10 magic items isn't bad.
As for making Charisma a dead stat, I'm still amazed that other people run games where only one person ever makes social checks. Also, if it's fine for wizards to leave Strength at 10 it should be fine for other people to leave Charisma at 10 too.
To be fair, you can houserule resonance at your home game if you want. Or whatever other houserules you want. And unlike homebrewed stuff resonance was created by Paizo and playtested.
I wouldn't be surprised if it shows up as an alternate rule in a later publication.
I also liked the idea that resonance could be used as an all-purpose pool for "uses per day" items.I don't like all-purpose pools. Players usually end up identifying the one most useful use of the pool points, and then never use them for anything else.
GM: "Well, in this game you have a hero point pool that you can use to reroll skill checks but you must take the second roll even if it's worse, or to not die when you would normally die..."
Player: "Then I will just save them up in case I ever need to not die."
GM: "...and there are Resonance points that you can use to activate any wand or staff or magic item."
Player: "My best magic item is this wand, so I will only ever use them for that."Exactly this. And in a few years time, a community meta will emerge where you'll get the same kind of push-back for using your Resonance sub-optimally as you got when you wanted to play a core monk or rogue. Gentle prods that boil down to "We're playing a somewhat more optimized campaign, if you don't make meta choices, the GM is going to have to start lowering the difficulty, and that's not what we signed up for".
There's also the subconscious acknowledgment that you're spending a resource on one thing when it could be spent on something else, which puts a damper on the coolness of using a magic item. ...
My main objection to resonance as an all-purpose magic-item pool is the double bookkeeping. Drink a potion and both cross the potion off the inventory and mark down one resonance point used. Activate a wand and both mark one charge off the wand and mark down one resonance point used. If wands used resonance alone, it would be better.
As WatersLethe pointed out, the all-purpose pool would mean that the character would chose one wand, and maybe a backup situational magic item or two, as their sole activated items. But that fits the folklore, where wands are rare or personal items, so one wand per person is the limit.
That argument about the GM lowering the difficulty is contrary to my experience. I run Paizo adventure paths, and when my party is underequipped, I raise the difficulty by one level instead of two. Powergaming optimization is not the strongest way to build a character; instead, optimizing for teamwork is much more effective. My players love teamwork. Customizing characters around their personality, which includes forgoing items that don't fit their style, aids the teamwork.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
yeah I am in the minority in that I looked forward to the concept of a resonance type mechanic even if the execution was problematic. I absolutely hated the Christmas tree affect and the over value of low lvl healing items and such and was hoping to see that addressed.
I am looking forward to the new game no doubt but I am curious what they brought to the table, if anything, that addressed these ancient issues with the 3,5 system.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
yeah I am in the minority in that I looked forward to the concept of a resonance type mechanic even if the execution was problematic. I absolutely hated the Christmas tree affect and the over value of low lvl healing items and such and was hoping to see that addressed.
I am looking forward to the new game no doubt but I am curious what they brought to the table, if anything, that addressed these ancient issues with the 3,5 system.
Well, the 'Christmas tree' effect is partially gone just because PCs now only need maybe 3 items to max out the 'stat bonus' magic items (a magic weapon, magic armor, and an ability booster by 15th level or so). That right there reduces the Christmas tree thing quite a bit.
Low level healing potions and the like now run into some minor logistical issues (since Wands don't do that...how many potions can you reasonably carry?), but more importantly are likely made mostly irrelevant by mundane healing being actually good...and free of charge. Apparently, at 1st level, someone with mundane Medicine can heal 2d8 HP in ten minutes, and can do so once per hour. Assuming that scales appropriately, that's a really solid amount of healing and vastly decreases the reliance on consumables for non-combat healing (which was always where low level ones were an issue).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
yeah I am in the minority in that I looked forward to the concept of a resonance type mechanic even if the execution was problematic. I absolutely hated the Christmas tree affect and the over value of low lvl healing items and such and was hoping to see that addressed.
I am looking forward to the new game no doubt but I am curious what they brought to the table, if anything, that addressed these ancient issues with the 3,5 system.
Well, the 'Christmas tree' effect is partially gone just because PCs now only need maybe 3 items to max out the 'stat bonus' magic items (a magic weapon, magic armor, and an ability booster by 15th level or so). That right there reduces the Christmas tree thing quite a bit.
Low level healing potions and the like now run into some minor logistical issues (since Wands don't do that...how many potions can you reasonably carry?), but more importantly are likely made mostly irrelevant by mundane healing being actually good...and free of charge. Apparently, at 1st level, someone with mundane Medicine can heal 2d8 HP in ten minutes, and can do so once per hour. Assuming that scales appropriately, that's a really solid amount of healing and vastly decreases the reliance on consumables for non-combat healing (which was always where low level ones were an issue).
Yeah I am encouraged by that for sure. They did something similar in Starfinder with Stamina and being able to heal that up with 10 min of rest. However low lvl potions are still under priced and I see players clinging to buckets of those rather than move on to the higher priced consumables. Its an ingrained issue in a lvl based system though so its a hard one to tackle.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also liked the idea that resonance could be used as an all-purpose pool for "uses per day" items.I don't like all-purpose pools. Players usually end up identifying the one most useful use of the pool points, and then never use them for anything else.
GM: "Well, in this game you have a hero point pool that you can use to reroll skill checks but you must take the second roll even if it's worse, or to not die when you would normally die..."
Player: "Then I will just save them up in case I ever need to not die."
GM: "...and there are Resonance points that you can use to activate any wand or staff or magic item."
Player: "My best magic item is this wand, so I will only ever use them for that."
This is a small part of the reason I am very happy they did not replace n/day items with powered as many times per day by resonance items. The per day items, in my opinion were interesting and contributed nicely to the story nicely.
If the only limit was some multi-use pool, it just changes the dynamic so much I found it lacking. If they kept a per day max and used a resonance, it was palatable, if the purpose was to keep someone from loading up on so much magic that they were super-charging themselves to be equivalent to several levels higher.
I was actually for some kind of way to limit the number of consumables someone could churn though in a day, such as scrolls and/or wands or staffs for instance. I had a problem with potions being tied into the same mechanic, as I just felt like one should only be able to have one potion affecting them at a time, or have permanent effects like healing potion, make the individual bolstered from additional potion healing for a time determined by potion level. (allowing higher level potions to have shorter bolster time-frames)
As to charisma being a dump stat, as it represents 'ability to influence others', what if charisma mod could be used to eliminate the action tax on one minion per CHA bonus? Basically, returning to being a sort of limit on the number of hirelings someone can have. (and would make classes with a built in minion, want to have at least a 12 CHA)
On the other side of things, I really wonder if WILL Save rolls should be able to use the better of their WIS or CHA bonus (+ the higher of either penalty) instead of only being able to be based on Wisdom. Since Wisdom lets people see through the effects trying to manipulating someone, while their charisma represents their ability to assert themselves (even to themselves). Granted, not everyone good at manipulating others are always spectacular at controlling themselves, sot the current system has some merits, as is.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
yeah I am in the minority in that I looked forward to the concept of a resonance type mechanic even if the execution was problematic. I absolutely hated the Christmas tree affect and the over value of low lvl healing items and such and was hoping to see that addressed.
I am looking forward to the new game no doubt but I am curious what they brought to the table, if anything, that addressed these ancient issues with the 3,5 system.
Well, the 'Christmas tree' effect is partially gone just because PCs now only need maybe 3 items to max out the 'stat bonus' magic items (a magic weapon, magic armor, and an ability booster by 15th level or so). That right there reduces the Christmas tree thing quite a bit.
Low level healing potions and the like now run into some minor logistical issues (since Wands don't do that...how many potions can you reasonably carry?), but more importantly are likely made mostly irrelevant by mundane healing being actually good...and free of charge. Apparently, at 1st level, someone with mundane Medicine can heal 2d8 HP in ten minutes, and can do so once per hour. Assuming that scales appropriately, that's a really solid amount of healing and vastly decreases the reliance on consumables for non-combat healing (which was always where low level ones were an issue).
Combat healing really is the niche I figured Potions should always be in. It can get a bit expensive for out of combat, and in combat there is the action economy incentive to use a more powerful potion. Treat Wounds has out of combat healing covered now. But really, they need to change the price scaling of healing consumables. They like exponential price increases for items, but it simply doesn't work for healing consumables. That creates a big incentive to use the lower level versions because they're a bit under-priced, while the higher level ones are absurdly overpriced. You can buy a lot of permanent items for the cost of a single True Healing Potion, and that's really dumb. The average healing for the lowest level Healing potion costs 0.67 gp per HP, it's 17.02 for the highest. So of course people will just use the low level version. So if the price incentive to use lower level healing is the issue, solve it by attacking that directly instead of with some convoluted new system that punishes magic item use in general and ignores the actual issue. I can see the higher level items possibly being a little more expensive per HP, with the action economy benefit costing a bit of a premium, but 25 times as many GP per HP is extremely excessive.
Will Spell Point/Focus pools be based on spellcasting stat or on Cha as in the focus playtest? If it's Cha that would be a reason for a lot of characters to not dump Cha. Though personally I wasn't a fan of that idea.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are a number of ways they could've boosted Charisma that have nothing to do with Resonance or magic items. I agree it needs a boost, but that hardly needs to be the boost in question.Of for sure. But we've been given no indication that any such thing exists [or if we have I have missed it.] Without the suggestion of an alternative then we are left in the state of Charisma being a non stat for non charisma focused characters. I would be happy with basically anything to make me think more than 0 seconds about leaving Cha at 10 on most characters.
Weeeell... with Demoralize being so freaking strong and Scared to Death being even better, intimidation alone can justify CHA investment and it seems like an obvious skill for many martial types. This doesn't really negate your point: people not interested in Intimidation have no need for CHA. But it is no longer quite as simple as "I don't want to be the party face so I have no use for CHA."
I mean, if stat generation is like the playtest, you can't really "dump" stats anymore. Since you increase stats 4 at a time you have to increment at least one stat that doesn't contribute to saves, so Charisma just needs enough to make it as attractive as Strength and Intelligence.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm still hoping for focus points to be Charisma based, honestly, but I imagine you'd get huge flack from the Wizard players raging that they shouldn't have to have Charisma to use Hand of the Apprentice or w/e.
And I say this as a Wizard player who hated that Arcanist was MAD. I honestly think in the new edition it's better if every class is a bit MAD.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm still hoping for focus points to be Charisma based, honestly, but I imagine you'd get huge flack from the Wizard players raging that they shouldn't have to have Charisma to use Hand of the Apprentice or w/e.
And I say this as a Wizard player who hated that Arcanist was MAD. I honestly think in the new edition it's better if every class is a bit MAD.
I'm still a fan of focus being Cha mod + Int mod for wizards. But I doubt that will happen since sum of two modifiers isn't really a thing in the game.
Man, I completely forgot about the Legendary application of Battle Cry. So good.
I'm still hoping for focus points to be Charisma based, honestly, but I imagine you'd get huge flack from the Wizard players raging that they shouldn't have to have Charisma to use Hand of the Apprentice or w/e.
And I say this as a Wizard player who hated that Arcanist was MAD. I honestly think in the new edition it's better if every class is a bit MAD.
Yeah, I too am really hoping that version of the Focus Point pool makes it into the final rules.
|
|
Personally, I'm not sure Focus being based on Charisma is really the best Charisma solution. That effects only half the Classes, three of which were already Cha based (Bard, Sorcerer, and Paladin), and one of which already had heavy Cha incentives (ie: it actually effects only Druid, Wizard, and Cleric, and Cleric already has incentives).
That's...not the blanket powering up of Charisma I'm hoping for. It is, instead, basically just a power down for Druid and Wizard, who don't seem to need a power down this edition.
Now, giving everyone Focus and something to do with it would make it more of a blanket thing, but given they aren't doing the magic items thing with Focus I don't even know what that would be.
I would like to see every class have options for Focus powers, actually. Certainly I think Monk ki abilities should be Focus powers, much as I know moving those off of Wis is likely to be unpopular.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That I think is much more likely, but doesn't do anything for Charisma.
I would like to see every class have options for Focus powers, actually. Certainly I think Monk ki abilities should be Focus powers, much as I know moving those off of Wis is likely to be unpopular.
I mean, "this sort of freezes out grumpy but wise monks who are mystically attuned" was my biggest problem with the focus playtest mechanics.
I wonder if stuff like "a cantrip from an ancestry feat" will be enough to make people care about charisma. I had a gnome barbarian in the playtest that ended up boosting charisma because "Electric Arc" was my ranged attack.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, "this sort of freezes out grumpy but wise monks who are mystically attuned" was my biggest problem with the focus playtest mechanics.
Careful. I was burned at the stake for suggesting that being grumpy, unsociable, or unlikeable could in any way be interpreted as having low charisma. Back in the early Resonance debates it was argued that there isn't a single character concept that is harmed by having high Charisma.
One side benefit of Charisma I would approve of was an interaction with hero points. I don't really like hero points, but if Charisma is the character's innate ability to affect the world around them, hero points seemed like a neat tie-in.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, "this sort of freezes out grumpy but wise monks who are mystically attuned" was my biggest problem with the focus playtest mechanics.Careful. I was burned at the stake for suggesting that being grumpy, unsociable, or unlikeable could in any way be interpreted as having low charisma. Back in the early Resonance debates it was argued that there isn't a single character concept that is harmed by having high Charisma.
One side benefit of Charisma I would approve of was an interaction with hero points. I don't really like hero points, but if Charisma is the character's innate ability to affect the world around them, hero points seemed like a neat tie-in.
I feel like "but dumping this stat is part of my character concept" feels like a poor case against making a stat more universally needed. Having my character be sickly, clumsy, or lacking in common sense could be part of my character concept. I'm still going to suffer mechanically if I dump con, dex, or wis. I don't see any reason why charisma should be any different.
Now, that doesn't mean it necessarily should be the stat for Focus Points, but it should be the stat for SOMETHING everyone needs, IMO.
I feel like monks are just the specific case where "tying focus to charisma" doesn't work well.
Since the "Hermit who wants nothing to do with anyone, who turns out to be an incredibly talented martial artist deeply in tune with the spiritual world, and is unwilling to teach our hero what he or she needs to know" is basically a trope (hell, it's *Yoda*) we should be able to support.
Now you could just fix that by letting monks switch focus to Wisdom, like how playtest Alchemists switched resonance to Intelligence. But monks should have more emphasis on Wisdom than other mental stats.
I feel like monks are just the specific case where "tying focus to charisma" doesn't work well.
Since the "Hermit who wants nothing to do with anyone, who turns out to be an incredibly talented martial artist deeply in tune with the spiritual world, and is unwilling to teach our hero what he or she needs to know" is basically a trope (hell, it's *Yoda*) we should be able to support.
Now you could just fix that by letting monks switch focus to Wisdom, like how playtest Alchemists switched resonance to Intelligence. But monks should have more emphasis on Wisdom than other mental stats.
To be fair, Yoda was also the leader of a major organization and is beloved and adorable. Having high charisma and liking people are two different things. You can have the capacity to make people like you and still be a reclusive hermit. I think I'm a fairly charismatic individual IRL, but I also try to be discerning of where I spend my social energy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Often that reclusive hermit turns out to be incredibly adept at manipulating or intimidating people when they do bother, also.
Obi-wan, for example.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like that's subverting the Wuxia trope though, since sometimes the reclusive drunk who teaches you drunken maser kung fu is, in fact, a deeply unpleasant person (but you are nonetheless better off for their tutelage.)
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
It strikes me as very odd to look at making a rule system simply as a make-work program for Charisma. I'm much more concerned about whether something makes sense and is fun or not than forcing artificial relevance to a stat. And making all classes powers dependent on charisma really doesn't make sense and frankly isn't fun in my mind. It's just a stat tax justified solely by the desire for a stat tax. A stat tax should at least have a better justification than the fact that the stat is irreverent to most people.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unpleasant is not necessarily non-charismatic. I've seen people who are rude, unpleasant souls who people, for some reason will do almost whatever it is they ask that isn't unreasonable. Is it because then they will leave, or some other reason, I don't know. But then there will be genuine, nice, polite people who ask gently for something, and they simply get ignored.
The first is an example of a high charisma 'mule' and the second is an example of low charisma friend that just seems to get ignored, irrespective of their being cute or nice or moral. They just don't have the 'presence' that moves others to do what they say.
The drunk kung fu master may well be very charismatic. Even if he intentionally fails every single diplomacy check he makes. (since he prefers everyone have at most an indifferent relationship with him, as it simplifies his life, since people who think they are friends just make things complicated for them)
Charisma doesn't mean Cute or Sexy. Cute or Sexy can certainly be a means to acquire influence over others, but it is just one of numerous channels that one can assert influence over others. For that matter, Ugly and Scarred can also be a means to cause influence over people, letting you manipulate them, because you know what they want. (maybe to be away from you, or to not have to look at you) It is a matter of how good you are at being able convert these things you know into manipulative conditions to get what you want out of another person in your current situation.
I've seen people play characters they arrange to have 6-8 CHA so they can play them as Rude and Demanding. They expect everyone to do exactly what they say, and they accept no less. This is not actually playing a low charisma character. If they are used to getting their way by complaining, which they obviously are, they are used to doing extremely well on hard diplomacy checks, meaning they should have to have a significant plus due to their charisma.
If they are a rude complaining soul that is always demanding things, and outwardly expecting things to be done that way, but inwardly not confident in themselves and realizing they likely won't get what they truly want. Now that could be a low CHA concept.
Or at least that's how I see it.
]Case in point, I'm level 5 and I suddenly find my character ends up doing a lot of the talking so I should get better at Diplomacy. Do I buff my Charisma and raise my bonus from +0 to +1 or do I raise my Intelligence and gain training in Diplomacy to raise my bonus from +0 to +5?
This is a good point. Charisma should be more important for diplomacy than int, but the scaling of stat bonuses and proficiency bonuses does create an odd incentive in favor of inteligence. I'm not sure of a good solution to this. This isn't really an exclusive thing to CHA though, it's a feature of the proficiency system in general. The playtest scaling of proficiency didn't apply so much, but that had it's own issues of it not feeling like you're actually progressing much with proficiency increases. I guess the point in favor of CHA is that you can use it for multiple skills such as bluff and intimidate, rather than the proficiency boost only giving one. And once you have that trained, the incentive is back to supporting charisma.