# Pathfinder 2E's New Death & Dying Rules; More on Resonance



## Ancalagon (Mar 15, 2018)

> could probably insta-kill a kobold grandmother




:O   Eric's Grandma won't like this one bit!


----------



## CubicsRube (Mar 15, 2018)

For a company that claims they are not inspired by 5e, pf2 sure have a lot of mechanics that sounds very 5e...


----------



## Ancalagon (Mar 15, 2018)

I do have to say that having a "two steps" mechanism to revive - you need positive HP AND you need a save/spell/something to lose the dying condition... that may be a good thing.   I'm not sure I like the 5e "go down, pop up again" results...


----------



## ZeshinX (Mar 15, 2018)

Frankly, I'll likely just ignore Resonance altogether (how easy/difficult that will be depends, I suspect, mostly on how integrated it is in the rules overall).  Much like I completely ignore Attunement in 5e.  I find the concept for "typical" magic items absurd.  Relics/artifacts...now that is where it works for me.  Relics/artifacts tend to be sentient or near sentient...or more basically have a "sense" for whomever tries to use them.  For those I can absolutely see a "getting to know you" period of adjustment.  For non-artifact magic....no.


----------



## kenmarable (Mar 15, 2018)

Personally, I find the level of useful/enjoyable/whatever complexity depends on where it is. Outside of the game session, for example during character creation and leveling, a lot of complexity is a good thing. In play when deciding what to do, you really want far less complexity but a little is nice (and where I can see PF2 and 5e playstyles serving different audiences nicely). 

The biggest problem comes up in complexity of a particular action. Once I decide I want to do something, there should be very little complexity at all since that’s where the game bogs down. 5e went spretty extreme here with just advantage/disadvantage and trying to eliminate every floating bonus they could since 3.x and PF1 could easily get overwhelmed with +1 for this , +2 for that (but does it stack?), since you did that it’s a -1, etc. Complexity in that area of the game is rarely fun and worth it. 

Sounds like they are going in the right direction of decreasing complexity within actions but preserving or even increasing complexity outside of play.


----------



## CubicsRube (Mar 15, 2018)

I think increasing meaningful choice is the area complexity pays off.

I really like the 3 action ideea of pf2 and i think it has the potential to be a great mechanic. It gives a very wide range of options that a player needs to decide on and it makes the game tactical and interesting. Plus class feats and interaction with the 3 action economy really increases the scope of different characters to play different in combat.

The dying rules are ok at the moment, but also seem to have too much complexity for not a lot of good gain. Deeath savees depending on the monster that took you to 0? I dont see the value in that as it doesnt give any interesting choice or even feel thematic. It just creates another number to keep track of. Thats what even many pathfinder fans already complain of, so i think theyd do well to be mindful of that


----------



## Blue (Mar 15, 2018)

CubicsRube said:


> For a company that claims they are not inspired by 5e, pf2 sure have a lot of mechanics that sounds very 5e...




13th Age is a d20 OGL that was out in playtest before D&D Next, (and in production before 5e).  5e shares *a lot* of concepts with it.  This isn't because 5e copied them from 13th Age, but because there were ideas in the industry, and problems that needed to be solved.  That PF, another d20 OGL, encountered the same sort of problems and similar types of answers can easily be explained by parallel evolution.

For example, let's look at "Christmas tree of magic items" that gamers were not fond of.

13th Age gave every item a quirk, and if you have more items then levels (it's only a 10 level game), the quirks take over.  All consumables are one-shots, there are no 50 charge wands.

5e made some items attunement, and you only have 3 attunement slots.  Plus daily usable charges on consumables was greatly reduced.

Pathfinder has resonance points, where your permanent magic items eat up a chunk per day, and that's also the resource used to activate consumables.

Three solutions that are close, because all three are solving the same problem.


----------



## Sunseeker (Mar 15, 2018)

I actually thought the resonance system seemed rather intuitive, not fiddly.  Still people will complain about everything.

The death rules seem rather fiddly and I'm not wholly clear on if say, you hit Dying 2, and then save, you're still Dying 2 but unconscious, or if you're Dying 1, or some other kind of "dying", the use of lower-case seems to imply you no longer have the condition?


----------



## Jer (Mar 15, 2018)

Blue said:


> For example, let's look at "Christmas tree of magic items" that gamers were not fond of.




I have a question here, because I have been wondering if this is actually a problem in Pathfinder or not.  Are people actually complaining about the Christmas Tree effect in Pathfinder?  Or is this a perceived problem that is being carried over from other d20 games and there's an assumption that there's a problem?

I ask because I can't believe that gamers are uniform in their hatred of the 3e Magical Item Christmas Tree effect.  There have to be a portion of gamers who actually like it because there isn't anything in D&D that gets 100% uniformity of opinion.  Maybe they're a tiny group, but I expect them to exist.

And if they exist I'd expect that they might have migrated to Pathfinder.  Because that's the system that supports that style of play.  So I'd be curious to know if it's actually perceived as a problem at the table for Pathfinder groups, or if it's a feature, or if it's not something anyone thinks about because it's just "how the game is played" and they work around it.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 15, 2018)

Jer said:


> I have a question here, because I have been wondering if this is actually a problem in Pathfinder or not.  Are people actually complaining about the Christmas Tree effect in Pathfinder?  Or is this a perceived problem that is being carried over from other d20 games and there's an assumption that there's a problem?
> 
> I ask because I can't believe that gamers are uniform in their hatred of the 3e Magical Item Christmas Tree effect.  There have to be a portion of gamers who actually like it because there isn't anything in D&D that gets 100% uniformity of opinion.  Maybe they're a tiny group, but I expect them to exist.
> 
> And if they exist I'd expect that they might have migrated to Pathfinder.  Because that's the system that supports that style of play.  So I'd be curious to know if it's actually perceived as a problem at the table for Pathfinder groups, or if it's a feature, or if it's not something anyone thinks about because it's just "how the game is played" and they work around it.




I've always found it to be problematic for me. Can't speak for anybody else.


----------



## Blue (Mar 15, 2018)

Jer said:


> I have a question here, because I have been wondering if this is actually a problem in Pathfinder or not.  Are people actually complaining about the Christmas Tree effect in Pathfinder?  Or is this a perceived problem that is being carried over from other d20 games and there's an assumption that there's a problem?
> 
> I ask because I can't believe that gamers are uniform in their hatred of the 3e Magical Item Christmas Tree effect.  There have to be a portion of gamers who actually like it because there isn't anything in D&D that gets 100% uniformity of opinion.  Maybe they're a tiny group, but I expect them to exist.
> 
> And if they exist I'd expect that they might have migrated to Pathfinder.  Because that's the system that supports that style of play.  So I'd be curious to know if it's actually perceived as a problem at the table for Pathfinder groups, or if it's a feature, or if it's not something anyone thinks about because it's just "how the game is played" and they work around it.




All I can say is that the designers of Pathfinder thought it was a big enough problem to address.  On the other hand, they keep stressing that characters rarely ran out of Resonance unless they were intentionally spamming Cure Light Wound wands or other abuse, so it looks like they calibrated it at a more permissive level than 13th Age or 5e.

But don't focus too much on that - this was just an example of how addressing the same sorts of problems in similar contexts can give you solutions that resemble each other without having been taken from each other.


----------



## Charlaquin (Mar 15, 2018)

> Bulmahn commented -- "Hmm... I keep seeing posts that tracking one pool of points is too fiddly. It's odd, considering that it's meant to replace a system where everything had its own personal system of usage with times per day, total charges, and time based limits. Of course, I have plenty of reservations about this particular mechanic. We're definitely pushing the envelope here, but fiddly is not the complaint I expected to see so frequently."



Interesting. So the implication here is that Resonance is a replacement for individual limitations on item usage, not in addition to it. So, for example, a wand of CLW could actually be used unlimited times in one day, but each person it’s used on can only benefit from so many uses of it? That is indeed less fiddly. I had assumed items would still have limited charges and that this would be yet another number to track. If I’m interpreting this tweet correctly, then I am much more interested in this mechanic than I was before.


----------



## Aldarc (Mar 15, 2018)

The nice thing about Resonance is that it incentivizes the use of more powerful items (e.g., Wand of CSW) rather than the spamming of lower-powered ones (e.g., Wand of CLW), as the former will count less against your Resonance than spamming the latter.


----------



## RevTurkey (Mar 15, 2018)

Resonance sounds like rules for the sake of it. Puts me off the system to be honest.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 15, 2018)

RevTurkey said:


> Resonance sounds like rules for the sake of it. Puts me off the system to be honest.




You've just identified the point of a playtest.


----------



## Philippe Marcil (Mar 15, 2018)

Resonance seems like a great idea to me. 

It put the magic items resources into a single pool which would simplify the management of all the items slot and maximum use.

It have so much potential in term of gameplay - magic item could be far more potent by having a high resonance cost. The use of an item won`t be limited by it inherent limits but by your own resonance which is great. That allow you to spam use of an item that you need right now in exchange for not using another item today.

I think the framing of the argument as a way to avoid a problem make people resist the idea. If it is framed as a positive - think about the flexibility, versality and combo potential of this new resources - it make the statement far more interesting and enticing.


----------



## Charlaquin (Mar 15, 2018)

RevTurkey said:


> Resonance sounds like rules for the sake of it. Puts me off the system to be honest.




I thought the same thing until that tweet, because I thought Resonance would be layering on top of the standard system of magic item charges. After having it (indirectly) clarified that the intent is for Resonance to replace that system, it no longer sounds like rules for the sake of rules to me. It sounds like rules for the sake of consolidating how many counters you have to keep track of. Instead of tracking how many charges each of your magic items have left, you only need to track how many magic item uses _you_ have left. Much easier.

I’m still not sold on Resonance, but now I see what they were going for with it. I’ll need to try it out in the playtest before I pass judgment.


----------



## RevTurkey (Mar 15, 2018)

Morrus said:


> You've just identified the point of a playtest.




Well...quite, lol 

It just sounds a bit naff...items stopping working because you’ve overdosed on your magic quota for the day.


----------



## Dire Bare (Mar 15, 2018)

CubicsRube said:


> For a company that claims they are not inspired by 5e, pf2 sure have a lot of mechanics that sounds very 5e...




Considering Paizo's long history of being dishonest with their fans, I think it's safe to assume that PF2 is essentially an adaptation of the D&D 5E ruleset . . . . sure they are saying it isn't, but . . .

*OR . . . .*

Considering Paizo's long history of being straightforward with their fans, I think it's safe to assume PF2 is not heavily based on the D&D 5E ruleset. Because, well, that's what they have told us, and there is no rational reason not to take them at their word.


----------



## Charlaquin (Mar 15, 2018)

RevTurkey said:


> It just sounds a bit naff...items stopping working because you’ve overdosed on your magic quota for the day.




Now that I can empathize with. I’ll have to wait and see how (and if) they justify it in the fiction. Sounds like they’re expanding on the concept the Occultist introduced of imbuing some of your essence into magic items to make them work. Apparently that’s how all magic items will work im Golarion if they do end up sticking with this mechanic.


----------



## Nikosandros (Mar 15, 2018)

I'm very perplexed by the tidbit about the dying save DC being dependent on the type of opponent.


----------



## kenmarable (Mar 15, 2018)

Jer said:


> I have a question here, because I have been wondering if this is actually a problem in Pathfinder or not.  Are people actually complaining about the Christmas Tree effect in Pathfinder?  Or is this a perceived problem that is being carried over from other d20 games and there's an assumption that there's a problem?
> 
> I ask because I can't believe that gamers are uniform in their hatred of the 3e Magical Item Christmas Tree effect.  There have to be a portion of gamers who actually like it because there isn't anything in D&D that gets 100% uniformity of opinion.  Maybe they're a tiny group, but I expect them to exist.
> 
> And if they exist I'd expect that they might have migrated to Pathfinder.  Because that's the system that supports that style of play.  So I'd be curious to know if it's actually perceived as a problem at the table for Pathfinder groups, or if it's a feature, or if it's not something anyone thinks about because it's just "how the game is played" and they work around it.




For me, being able to be a magic item Christmas Tree can be fun. *Needing* to be a magic item Christmas Tree or else you fall behind is not so much fun. This is especially true for me who finds "+X to Y" to be extremely boring whether it's a magic item or feat, yet 3.x and I'd say even moreso with PF1 it kind of expects you to get a lot of those. I'm far more interested in "able to do X that you couldn't before" than in dull and boring "+X to Y" boosts.

So, _choosing_ to be a magic item Christmas Tree _decorated how I want_ can be a lot of fun. Being basically required to be a magic item Christmas Tree only decorated a certain way isn't so much fun.


----------



## Pandatheist (Mar 15, 2018)

Context on the divisive comment. After 12 pages and well over 500 comments, there appear to be 3 camps on the paizo forum when it comes to resonance: Resonance is good for all the reasons of simplification Paizo say. Resonance is bad because it attacks the symptoms and not the core system problems. Resonance is fine for wands and magic items but is bad for single use items such as potions and scrolls, because it changes some assumptions for how magic work in the system/world of Golarion, or due to thoughts on it feeling to "gamey"/hurting immersion.


----------



## The Human Target (Mar 15, 2018)

My two cents-

They have a lot of the right ideas, but are doing things in a very unnecessarily fiddly 3rd edition way.


----------



## Charlaquin (Mar 15, 2018)

Pandatheist said:


> Context on the divisive comment. After 12 pages and well over 500 comments, there appear to be 3 camps on the paizo forum when it comes to resonance: Resonance is good for all the reasons of simplification Paizo say. Resonance is bad because it attacks the symptoms and not the core system problems. Resonance is fine for wands and magic items but is bad for single use items such as potions and scrolls, because it changes some assumptions for how magic work in the system/world of Golarion, or due to thoughts on it feeling to "gamey"/hurting immersion.




Weird that these are three _different_ camps, given that none of the positions they hold are mutually exclusive. I actually agree with all three points. Resonance does streamline the process of tracking magic item uses, and that is a good thing. It does attack the symptoms of magic item spam and not the underlying system issues that cause magic item spam, which is a good reason to be critical of it. And it is pretty awkward from a verisimilitude standpoint that shooting too many lazer beams with your magic sword can make it so potions of healing don’t work on you any more, which is another valid reason to be critical of it. Why would those three perspectives be divisive? Seems more like solid feedback, acknowledging both the strengths and weaknesses of the rule. I for one am interested to see how it sits alongside the rest of the mechanics and how they present it within the fiction.


----------



## Ancalagon (Mar 15, 2018)

Morrus said:


> I've always found it to be problematic for me. Can't speak for anybody else.



It annoys me as well; but I know some people like it.


----------



## houser2112 (Mar 15, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Weird that these are three _different_ camps, given that none of the positions they hold are mutually exclusive. I actually agree with all three points. Resonance does streamline the process of tracking magic item uses, and that is a good thing. It does attack the symptoms of magic item spam and not the underlying system issues that cause magic item spam, which is a good reason to be critical of it. And it is pretty awkward from a verisimilitude standpoint that shooting too many lazer beams with your magic sword can make it so potions of healing don’t work on you any more, which is another valid reason to be critical of it. Why would those three perspectives be divisive? Seems more like solid feedback, acknowledging both the strengths and weaknesses of the rule. I for one am interested to see how it sits alongside the rest of the mechanics and how they present it within the fiction.




The verisimilitude angle is the one that bothers me the most. I'm all for streamlining things where they are warranted, but it doesn't make a bit of sense to me that items that are not connected in any way can be affected by each other. The wand either has juice left and you know the command word, or not. "Fiddly" is perhaps a bad word to use when the word they want to use is "gamist".


----------



## CubicsRube (Mar 15, 2018)

Blue said:


> 13th Age is a d20 OGL that was out in playtest before D&D Next, (and in production before 5e).  5e shares *a lot* of concepts with it.  This isn't because 5e copied them from 13th Age, but because there were ideas in the industry, and problems that needed to be solved.  That PF, another d20 OGL, encountered the same sort of problems and similar types of answers can easily be explained by parallel evolution.
> 
> For example, let's look at "Christmas tree of magic items" that gamers were not fond of.
> 
> ...




I didn't specify but i was mostly talking abput the death saves idea.

I like 5e, so i dont mind that they are gaining inspiration from ideas that gained popularity in 5e, even if it didnt orginate there. Howeber the paizp staff at the moment seem to be trying to counter the perception they are "copying" from 5e too hard i think.

In board games no pne accuses the game designer of cppying another game if they use a worker placement system, or an ai card deck, etc. Well, some do, but its not taken very seriously.

If resonance is implemented well and replaces charges in things like wands etc, it could be a useful and potentially elegant addition to the system.


----------



## CubicsRube (Mar 15, 2018)

Nikosandros said:


> I'm very perplexed by the tidbit about the dying save DC being dependent on the type of opponent.




Yup, me too


----------



## kenmarable (Mar 15, 2018)

houser2112 said:


> The verisimilitude angle is the one that bothers me the most. I'm all for streamlining things where they are warranted, but it doesn't make a bit of sense to me that items that are not connected in any way can be affected by each other. The wand either has juice left and you know the command word, or not. "Fiddly" is perhaps a bad word to use when the word they want to use is "gamist".




I don't know if it's a good system or not (waiting to see the full details) but it could make sense in-game pretty easily. After all, it sounds like the wand still works perfectly fine if I understand resonance correctly. Just use it on someone else. It's _your body_ that can only take so much magic. That seems like a reasonable magic system and very gamist or violating verisimilitude at all (although the fact that it is a change from the past is definitely a big hit to verisimilitude! But I'm sure a little Spellplague or Time of Troubles would handle that easily!  Just kidding!!!!). 

But it seemed to me when I read about it, that it's not a limitation on how much the wand (or whatever item) can do, but on how much you can take. But I could be wrong, and I'm sure when the full details are presented, we will REALLY dig into it thoroughly and debated. That's one of the drawbacks of teasing and hinting at new rules rather than presenting them in detail. Sure, it feeds our hunger for more info, but it also leads to people forming opinions without all the details. *shrug*


----------



## CubicsRube (Mar 15, 2018)

Given that spell casters have a limited number of spell slots, there is a precedent for "running out of magic juice". In a sense they have set up a spell point system for magic items.

I dont really have a prpblem with the justification. But it sounds like pf2 is going to be pushing the "gamey" angle, at least from what ive heard.

A solution i have read in adventures in middle earth i like is that some items require you to spend inspiration or a hit die. I quite liked that.

This is tangental, but if for example the clw wand instead allowed a character to roll a hit die (are thry a thing in pf? I dont remember) to heal themselves, then you couldnt spam it as itd be limited by how much hd the character has used up already since their last rest


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 15, 2018)

My question about Resonance - and if it's already been answered elsewhere I missed it - is how it's intended to work with "always on" items e.g. magic armour, weapons, rings, etc.; particularly those that have occasional extra effects.

If I have a +1 shortsword that on a critical heals me for 2d6; a suit of fearless +0 plate mail (makes me immune to fear effects); and a +1 shield that 3x/day on my command generates a force pulse that can knock back my foe and stun it (save applies) - how do these work with Resonance?  And for completeness, let's say I've also got a +1 returning dagger at my belt.

Those are three different levels of effect.  The shortsword's effect isn't under my control and its triggering condition is random.  The armour's effect is always on.  The shield effect is under my control as is its triggering.

So, in a battle-heavy day the following things happen.  In each case, how many Resonance points are used?

0. I don my armour and shield in the morning, and draw my shortsword when battle nears.
1. I score two criticals with my shortsword, getting healed up a bit each time.
2. My armour protects me against four different fear effects.
3. I use all three stun-shots from my shield.
4. On five different occasions I stow my shortsword, pull out my dagger, and throw it.
5. At one point I take a breather and put my shield down, and later I pick it up and re-don it.
6. During the day I knock back two potions of healing.

Answers?
0.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6. = *2*

Lan-"and this doesn't even consider any other magic I might be wearing"-efan


----------



## generic (Mar 15, 2018)

kenmarable said:


> Personally, I find the level of useful/enjoyable/whatever complexity depends on where it is. Outside of the game session, for example during character creation and leveling, a lot of complexity is a good thing. In play when deciding what to do, you really want far less complexity but a little is nice (and where I can see PF2 and 5e playstyles serving different audiences nicely).
> 
> The biggest problem comes up in complexity of a particular action. Once I decide I want to do something, there should be very little complexity at all since that’s where the game bogs down. 5e went spretty extreme here with just advantage/disadvantage and trying to eliminate every floating bonus they could since 3.x and PF1 could easily get overwhelmed with +1 for this , +2 for that (but does it stack?), since you did that it’s a -1, etc. Complexity in that area of the game is rarely fun and worth it.
> 
> Sounds like they are going in the right direction of decreasing complexity within actions but preserving or even increasing complexity outside of play.



This is an excellent point.  I sometimes wish that I could make a 5e character with greater depth, as I can currently create a 5e character in about fifteen minutes.  This, for certain purposes (such as one shots), can be wonderful, but the sheer process of creating a character in PF1 can be an enjoyable time sink.  However, I do love 5e's combat simplicity.


----------



## CubicsRube (Mar 15, 2018)

[MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] its a good question and i wait to see how theyd habdke this too. I would envisage it kind of like an encumbrance system, where while you weild it it uses up so many points. In terms of the random effectd though i have no idea.

The team has introduced the idea only in the vaguest sense, and not really about how it works


----------



## Pandatheist (Mar 15, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> My question about Resonance - and if it's already been answered elsewhere I missed it - is how it's intended to work with "always on" items e.g. magic armour, weapons, rings, etc.; particularly those that have occasional extra effects.
> 
> If I have a +1 shortsword that on a critical heals me for 2d6; a suit of fearless +0 plate mail (makes me immune to fear effects); and a +1 shield that 3x/day on my command generates a force pulse that can knock back my foe and stun it (save applies) - how do these work with Resonance?  And for completeness, let's say I've also got a +1 returning dagger at my belt.
> 
> ...





From my understanding the way it works is:
1 point to activate a passive magic item at the beginning of the day for the day.
1 point to use an activated ability from a magic item(if you had a sword that could do a flame blast or a helm of mind reading etc)
1 point to activate limited use items such as wands or a staff
1 point for single use items like potions or scrolls. 

so for your examples.

0) 3-4 depending on if you planned on using that dagger. I believe this is similar to 5e attunement minus the time to attune penalty.
1) 0-2. if this is worded as passive, it costs nothing. if this is worded as activated it would cost 2.
2) 0. passive abilities won't require repeat charges.
3) 3. Activating the ability each time would be a resonance point.
4) 0. spending the point at start of day to "activate" the item is a one time spend. should last the whole day.
5) 0. see #4.
6) 2.

From what I've read this is how it works, but given that we're all getting resonance rules from an actual play rather than an official rules document there could be some mistaken assumptions or edge case rules.


----------



## Charlaquin (Mar 15, 2018)

houser2112 said:


> The verisimilitude angle is the one that bothers me the most. I'm all for streamlining things where they are warranted, but it doesn't make a bit of sense to me that items that are not connected in any way can be affected by each other. The wand either has juice left and you know the command word, or not. "Fiddly" is perhaps a bad word to use when the word they want to use is "gamist".



For me, stuff like that always depends on how it’s presented. Granted, my first instinct is the same as yours - why would drinking too many health potions suddenly make my wand stop working? That doesn’t make any sense. But I had a similar first instinct when I first started playing D&D and found out that wizards could only cast a given spell a limited number of times per day, and had to choose each day how many of what spells they would be able to cast. It struck me at first as an totally artificial restriction put in place only for the sake of gameplay balance. It was the integration of this style of magic into the fiction that sold me on it. Magic can work any way the author wants it to, as long as it’s justified in the fiction with internally consistent logic. So, I’m open to the possibility of a Golarian where enchanted objects’ magical powers are fueled by their user’s magical energy rather than by their own internal reserves. It _could_ work that way. But I’ll have to see how they work it into the fiction before I can decide if I _like it_ working that way or not.

I think one thing that might help make such a change more versimilar is if you could spend your own Resonance to heal someone else with a CLW wand or whatever. If magic items don’t have their own batteries any more and have to be “plugged in” to a user, drawing charges from that user’s Resonance, then it would make sense to be able to charge up a wand with your Resonance but use it to heal someone else. I also think it would help if potions didn’t use resonance. As much as potions are supposed to be magical, I think most people still have a tendency to think of them more in terms of chemistry. You mix the right magical ingredients and the resulting potion just works - it shouldn’t need to be “charged” like a wand does.

As for the “fiddly” complaint, I called it fiddly when I first read it, only because I didn’t realize it was replacing magic item charges. I thought it was a personal limit on overall magic item use in addition to individual magic items’ limited uses. And I stand by that assessment - it _would be_ very fiddly to have to track not only your wand’s charges and your sword’s charges, but also how many of both you’ve used in total. If, however, the wand can work as many times as there are people with Resonance left to spend to power it, that’s much less fiddly. I think the miscommunication is to blame for that particular misplace critique.


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 15, 2018)

Pandatheist said:


> From my understanding the way it works is:
> 1 point to activate a passive magic item at the beginning of the day for the day.
> 1 point to use an activated ability from a magic item(if you had a sword that could do a flame blast or a helm of mind reading etc)
> 1 point to activate limited use items such as wands or a staff
> ...



 EDITED to counter your edit... 

For #1, what if I hadn't planned on using the dagger but then used it anyway?

If activating an always-on item (e.g. armour, weapon) once in the morning lasts for the day no matter how many times you don-doff it or draw-stow it or whatever, that's a relief.


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 15, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> I think one thing that might help make such a change more versimilar is if you could spend your own Resonance to heal someone else with a CLW wand or whatever. If magic items don’t have their own batteries any more and have to be “plugged in” to a user, drawing charges from that user’s Resonance, then it would make sense to be able to charge up a wand with your Resonance but use it to heal someone else. I also think it would help if potions didn’t use resonance. As much as potions are supposed to be magical, I think most people still have a tendency to think of them more in terms of chemistry. You mix the right magical ingredients and the resulting potion just works - it shouldn’t need to be “charged” like a wand does.
> 
> As for the “fiddly” complaint, I called it fiddly when I first read it, only because I didn’t realize it was replacing magic item charges. I thought it was a personal limit on overall magic item use in addition to individual magic items’ limited uses. And I stand by that assessment - it _would be_ very fiddly to have to track not only your wand’s charges and your sword’s charges, but also how many of both you’ve used in total. If, however, the wand can work as many times as there are people with Resonance left to spend to power it, that’s much less fiddly. I think the miscommunication is to blame for that particular misplace critique.



I'm confused - in the case of an item being used on a remote target (e.g. a CLW wand being used on an ally) is it the item user's Resonance that's being drained or the Resonance of the receiver of the effect?

I think it's supposed to be the user, and here's why: if it's the receiver, when I use a wand of fireballs against an opponent not only do I fry them but I drain their Resonance as well.  I kinda don't think that's what they have in mind... 

Lanefan


----------



## Pandatheist (Mar 15, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> EDITED to counter your edit...
> 
> For #1, what if I hadn't planned on using the dagger but then used it anyway?
> 
> If activating an always-on item (e.g. armour, weapon) once in the morning lasts for the day no matter how many times you don-doff it or draw-stow it or whatever, that's a relief.





I appreciate that! I missed a number, or misnumbered...this is what I get for not clicking Preview Post.

For the dagger, I think you would just use a point to activate it at use and then that would last....until rest? From the way they described it, its a refresh point pool at rest so I would guess then rather than a full day. 

And yeah. I do have a few issues regarding resonance, but if every time you picked back up the magic sword you had to use another point I think the system would be DOA.


----------



## Charlaquin (Mar 15, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> My question about Resonance - and if it's already been answered elsewhere I missed it - is how it's intended to work with "always on" items e.g. magic armour, weapons, rings, etc.; particularly those that have occasional extra effects.
> 
> If I have a +1 shortsword that on a critical heals me for 2d6; a suit of fearless +0 plate mail (makes me immune to fear effects); and a +1 shield that 3x/day on my command generates a force pulse that can knock back my foe and stun it (save applies) - how do these work with Resonance?  And for completeness, let's say I've also got a +1 returning dagger at my belt.
> 
> ...



It’s not entirely clear, but I _think_ you spend Resonance once to activate a passive magical effect for a day, and one for each use of an activated magical effect. Not sure how triggered effects play into it, but I would assume they work like passive effects, since they’re essentially “always on,” looking for an oppprtunity to trigger. I suppose it could be that once they trigger you have to spend a Resonance to “prepare” them again. So...



Lanefan said:


> 0. I don my armour and shield in the morning, and draw my shortsword when battle nears.



That’s 1 to activate the armor for the day and 1 to activate the shortsword for the day (or until your first crit?). The shield doesn’t need any resonance since you haven’t activated it’s ability yet. 2 Resonance total so far



Lanefan said:


> 1. I score two criticals with my shortsword, getting healed up a bit each time.



Depending on how we interpret triggered abilities, this costs either 0 Resonance since the shortsword is already “on” for the day, or 1 to re-activate it after the first crit and presumably 1 to re-activate it after the second crit. Either 2 or 4 Resonance total so far.



Lanefan said:


> 2. My armour protects me against four different fear effects.



No additional Resonance cost, since you already activated it for the day. Still at 2/4.



Lanefan said:


> 3. I use all three stun-shots from my shield.



That’s just 3 Resonance, each shot costing 1 Resonance to use. Either 5 or 7 Resonance spent so far.



Lanefan said:


> 4. On five different occasions I stow my shortsword, pull out my dagger, and throw it.



You didn’t mention activating that dagger at the beginning of the day, so I don’t think it’s returning property functions today under the “Triggered=Passive” interpretation.. Still 5 Resonance so far in that case, unless we assume you had activated it, in which case we’d be at 6 Resonance.  Under the “triggered=activated” interpretation, it doesn’t return the first time, you kick yourself, maybe make a check to find it after the battle, and pre-activate it before the next 4 uses. So then we’d be up to 11 Resonance, or 12 if we assume you remembered to activate it the first time.



Lanefan said:


> 5. At one point I take a breather and put my shield down, and later I pick it up and re-don it.



There’s no use of magic involved here, so I don’t think that affects the count.



Lanefan said:


> 6. During the day I knock back two potions of healing.



Those cost 1 Resonance each. Assuming you didn’t forget to turn your dagger on, that’s either 8 Resonance total for the day, or 14, depending on how we interpret triggered abilities. Given that the Paizo folks said their playtesters very rarely ran up against the Resonance limit, the smart money is on the “Triggered=Passive” interpretation.


----------



## Rupert Gilliand1 (Mar 15, 2018)

CubicsRube said:


> Yup, me too




Me three. I'd have to see their rationale to really get what they're going for here.
I can see it being tied to a weapon/spell property, though. Like "Rending: Increases the stabilise DC by 2" or a trade-off where a spell or monster ability does more damage in exchange for lowering the stability DC significantly...


----------



## Blue (Mar 15, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> My question about Resonance - and if it's already been answered elsewhere I missed it - is how it's intended to work with "always on" items e.g. magic armour, weapons, rings, etc.; particularly those that have occasional extra effects.
> 
> If I have a +1 shortsword that on a critical heals me for 2d6; a suit of fearless +0 plate mail (makes me immune to fear effects); and a +1 shield that 3x/day on my command generates a force pulse that can knock back my foe and stun it (save applies) - how do these work with Resonance?  And for completeness, let's say I've also got a +1 returning dagger at my belt.




Well, we'll find out more at the playtest.  From the limited information, taken second hand (from the summaries here) it seems like it would be:

At the beginning of your day, your permanent items have a Resonance cost called Investment.  So you allocate some of your Resonance and now have use of the +1 short sword, immunity to fear, +1 shield, and +1 returning(?) dagger in their basic forms.  That's a static number used every day that only changes when you modify what items you carry so it shouldn't take a lot of game time.

Activating an item also takes Resonance.  Now, we have no information yet about a triggered item like the short sword, so we'll have to hold off on that.  The Shield is usable an _unlimited_ number of times per day - they rolled uses per day into Resonance - but each time you use it, it costs Resonance.  I have no idea if the "returning" property on your dagger is considered activation requiring Resonance - I could make a guess but I have so little direct feel that it would be misleading to say we know how it's handled.


----------



## Charlaquin (Mar 15, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> I'm confused - in the case of an item being used on a remote target (e.g. a CLW wand being used on an ally) is it the item user's Resonance that's being drained or the Resonance of the receiver of the effect?
> 
> I think it's supposed to be the user, and here's why: if it's the receiver, when I use a wand of fireballs against an opponent not only do I fry them but I drain their Resonance as well.  I kinda don't think that's what they have in mind...
> 
> Lanefan




You’re probably right. It wouldn’t really make much sense for the recipient of the magic to be the one to spend the Resonance. Yet another reason Potions really shouldn’t cost Resonance. If we go with the user spends the Resonance interpretation, it should cost Resonance to _brew_ a magic potion, not to _drink_ one.


----------



## Shasarak (Mar 15, 2018)

> [*]*Resonance proved divisive yesterday.*
> 
> Jason Bulmahn weighed in on the heated discussion -- "Hey there all! Let's all just take a breath here before things get too heated. Resonance is a system that we knew was going to come with some controversy. It's really hard to give you a full sense of what the system allows us to do with the design space without going on a deep dive on magic items. This is a topic we are going to hit soon, so hang in there. I will say this before I go to run more demos at GAMA. Players have rarely run out of resonance in our games, and there is a lot more healing to go around than you might think."






My question would be, if you rarely run out of resonance then do you actually need resonance?

It just reinforces the common complaint that resonance is the worst rule in Pathfinder.


----------



## Charlaquin (Mar 15, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> My question would be, if you rarely run out of resonance then do you actually need resonance?



I rarely run out of gas in my car, but that doesn’t mean I don’t need a fuel gauge. People probably don’t often run out of Resonance because it’s a visible resource that they can consciously plan around. If people tend to use stronger, more expensive healing items rather than using cheaper ones more often to save on Resonance, and find thry don’t tend to run out of Resonance when they do so, that would seem to be working as intended. Encouraging economical use of resources without actually hampering your ability to use magic items.


----------



## Shasarak (Mar 15, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> I rarely run out of gas in my car, but that doesn’t mean I don’t need a fuel gauge. People probably don’t often run out of Resonance because it’s a visible resource that they can consciously plan around. If people tend to use stronger, more expensive healing items rather than using cheaper ones more often to save on Resonance, and find thry don’t tend to run out of Resonance when they do so, that would seem to be working as intended. Encouraging economical use of resources without actually hampering your ability to use magic items.




The difference that when you run out of gas (or hit points for example) then something happens: your car stops (and you start to die in the case of hit points).  These are obviosuly important things for you to keep track of.

But what happens when you run out of resonance?  Well nothing really unless you want to drink another healing potion in which case all of a sudden the magic stops working.

And that is what makes it the worst rule, it just exists to stop your fun.  Hey look at all your cool magic items you got there, too bad that you cant use them all.  Sucks to be you I guess.

Because why do you "want" to spam your wand of cure?  Because you dont want to go into your adventure injured.  So if you cant use your healing then the obvious solution is to just go home and rest for the day which means it naturally feeds into a 5 minute work day.  I would say that this is just a classic example of unexpected consequences except of course that we already saw this exact problem in 4e and do we really need to touch that burning hot fire again? No, just No.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Mar 15, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> You’re probably right. It wouldn’t really make much sense for the recipient of the magic to be the one to spend the Resonance. Yet another reason Potions really shouldn’t cost Resonance. If we go with the user spends the Resonance interpretation, it should cost Resonance to _brew_ a magic potion, not to _drink_ one.



Potions work exactly like all other magic items in this system, in that they are devices which allow an individual to channel their own personal reservoir of magical energy in a specific way. Everybody is like a walking battery, and magic items interface directly with that energy, and you can choose how you want to spend your energy before it runs out. You can either channel it through a staff to let the staff do its thing, or channel it into the runes on your sword to make it sharper for the day, or channel it into a potion in order to convert its ingredients into a healing effect. In every case, the user is the power source and the device is what shapes that power. At least, as I understand it.

The only thing that's even slightly weird about this explanation is that it means spellcasters have two different reserves of magical power which are completely incompatible with each other. You would expect that spellcasters could channel Resonance to power their spells, such that the only difference between spellcasters and non-spellcasters would be that spellcasters could cast spells without needing a magic item, if they'd tried to invent mechanics that would fit this explanation instead of trying to retro-fit new mechanics on top of the existing lore.


----------



## Grimstaff (Mar 15, 2018)

Some clever entrepreneur is going to make a fortune on an app to track resonance points and dying levels


----------



## Blue (Mar 15, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> My question would be, if you rarely run out of resonance then do you actually need resonance?
> 
> It just reinforces the common complaint that resonance is the worst rule in Pathfinder.




"Hey, here's a rule to prevent abuses, which luckily are rare."

"O.M.G. That's the worst rule in Pathfinder.  I speak for everyone, so it's a common complaint."

Really?  Maybe see what the rule in context and play before starting hyperbole that it's the Worst Thang Evar(tm).


----------



## Charlaquin (Mar 15, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> Potions work exactly like all other magic items in this system, in that they are devices which allow an individual to channel their own personal reservoir of magical energy in a specific way. Everybody is like a walking battery, and magic items interface directly with that energy, and you can choose how you want to spend your energy before it runs out. You can either channel it through a staff to let the staff do its thing, or channel it into the runes on your sword to make it sharper for the day, or channel it into a potion in order to convert its ingredients into a healing effect. In every case, the user is the power source and the device is what shapes that power. At least, as I understand it.




Yeah, I get that. I just feel like potions feel a little “one of these things is not like the others” in that explanation. The others you’re using your magical reserves to power an object imbued with a specific, repeatable magical effect. In the case of potions, you’re using it to catalyze an alchemical reaction. Which, I guess is reasonable. There’s no reason that couldn’t be the way potions work in Golarion. Personally though, it rubs me the wrong way. I like potions to sit a bit closer to the chemistry side of the fence rather than the magic object side. It’s weird to me that a consumable solution is “activated” the same way that an enchanted suit of armor is. But, I could get used to it. Like I said, I want to see how they present it in the fiction before coming to any conclusions about it.

That all said, I’m a gameplay > usability > verisimilitude kind of person, so it’s not game breaking for me if the explanation isn’t perfect.


----------



## Shasarak (Mar 15, 2018)

Blue said:


> "Hey, here's a rule to prevent abuses, which luckily are rare."




Except Blue that it does not actually prevent "abuses" (if infact we agree that healing yourself is some type of "abuse") it just shifts the abuse to the 5MWD.  I should not have shot so many firebolts from my sword because now I can not heal, time to go home and rest up I guess.



> "O.M.G. That's the worst rule in Pathfinder.  I speak for everyone, so it's a common complaint."
> 
> Really?  Maybe see what the rule in context and play before starting hyperbole that it's the Worst Thang Evar(tm).




If it makes you feel any better then you can mentally add things like "out of all the rules previewed so far" or "IMHO" in front of this is the Worst Thang Evar.

The stabilising rules look pretty hokey too.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Mar 15, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> Except Blue that it does not actually prevent "abuses" (if infact we agree that healing yourself is some type of "abuse") it just shifts the abuse to the 5MWD.  I should not have shot so many firebolts from my sword because now I can not heal, time to go home and rest up I guess.



Except, they're saying that doesn't happen in practice. Since the fighter knows how many item uses the have in the day, they avoid shooting firebolts because they want to be able to heal later.

Kind of like how the five-minute work-day has never actually been a problem at most tables. Most players are pretty good about pacing themselves.


Shasarak said:


> The stabilising rules look pretty hokey too.



Agreed.


----------



## Shasarak (Mar 15, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> Kind of like how the five-minute work-day has never actually been a problem at most tables. Most players are pretty good about pacing themselves.




Yeah, just like how spamming wands of cure has never actually been a problem at most tables.

The fact remains, if most people are not using a rule then why have the rule?  Especially if it just makes games bad for those who do use it?



Saelorn said:


> Agreed




It just occurred to me that by making it more difficult to stabilise from Boss damage that just starts a death spiral.  Meaning that you are probably more likely to be knocked unconscious by a Boss and then it is more difficult to recover from being knocked unconscious.  It just seems counter intuitive.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Mar 15, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> Yeah, just like how spamming wands of cure has never actually been a problem at most tables.



In my observation, spamming wands is a problem in PF1, so I'm relieved that it's not going to be a problem in PF2. I guess their observations matched mine? I don't know how much data they're working from, but it's potentially quite a bit.


Shasarak said:


> The fact remains, if most people are not using a rule then why have the rule? Especially if it just makes games bad for those who do use it?



The players _are_ using the rule, by making decisions in such a way as to avoid hitting the limit. If they _weren't_ using the rule - if they ignored the limit to how many times you could use a wand in a day - then everyone would just use their one wand and heal up to full after every fight; damage would be meaningless, and nobody would care about getting hurt at all.

In order for damage to matter at all, there needs to be a limitation on how easily you can heal, and this rule fixes the bug from PF1 where high-level parties could heal after every fight with only a trivial cost. If they didn't use this rule, then there would need to be some other rule which did the same thing, in order to prevent the gameplay from degenerating in such a manner.


----------



## Shasarak (Mar 16, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> In my observation, spamming wands is a problem in PF1, so I'm relieved that it's not going to be a problem in PF2. I guess their observations matched mine? I don't know how much data they're working from, but it's potentially quite a bit.




Equally anecdotally, my group has played a lot of 3e and Pathfinder without actually using Wands of Healing at all.  So i guess my observations run counter to theirs.



> The players _are_ using the rule, by making decisions in such a way as to avoid hitting the limit. If they _weren't_ using the rule - if they ignored the limit to how many times you could use a wand in a day - then everyone would just use their one wand and heal up to full after every fight; damage would be meaningless, and nobody would care about getting hurt at all.
> 
> In order for damage to matter at all, there needs to be a limitation on how easily you can heal, and this rule fixes the bug from PF1 where high-level parties could heal after every fight with only a trivial cost. If they didn't use this rule, then there would need to be some other rule which did the same thing, in order to prevent the gameplay from degenerating in such a manner.




That is only if you accept that "healing to full" is a bug rather then a feature.  In my experience most fights deal out plenty of damage so if I was unable to heal between fights then I would be less willing to push on.  Especially with the new stabilisation rules, going into a Boss fight already half dead seems irresponsible.

Without having seen the monster stats, I would imagine that a Dragon still has a breath weapon that most likely does gobs of damage and probably has a great attack bonus which (because of the crit on a +10 rule) could be doing crit damage more often then not especially to the low AC party members.  No, sorry you have not convinced me that this solution is not much much worse then the supposed problem that it was meant to fix.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Mar 16, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> That is only if you accept that "healing to full" is a bug rather then a feature.  In my experience most fights deal out plenty of damage so if I was unable to heal between fights then I would be less willing to push on.  Especially with the new stabilisation rules, going into a Boss fight already half dead seems irresponsible.



Can you at least see how infinite free healing between fights runs counter to the attrition model, as presented by daily limits on spells? Some games, like early D&D, are designed around an attrition model where you slowly run out of resources (HP and spells) over the course of the day. Other games, like 4E, are designed around the encounter model where you're more-or-less at full strength going into each new encounter.

If HP worked on the encounter model, then it would be counterproductive for spells to work on the attrition model.


----------



## Blue (Mar 16, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> Except Blue that it does not actually prevent "abuses" (if infact we agree that healing yourself is some type of "abuse") it just shifts the abuse to the 5MWD.  I should not have shot so many firebolts from my sword because now I can not heal, time to go home and rest up I guess.




Cool story bro, now try actually reading what they posted.

You're not running out from healing, as you already commented on that they aren't running out at all in normal play.  What they did run out was a high level party trying to abuse cheap wands of cure light wounds to heal all the way up.

For someone who's so quick to throw around that most people are already agreeing Resonance is the worst rule ever, let's get to something that people actually _do_ agree on - that spamming through cheap wands of cure light wounds after every combat is cheesy.

In other words, yes, it's abuse.  Thanks for playing.


----------



## Charlaquin (Mar 16, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> That is only if you accept that "healing to full" is a bug rather then a feature.  In my experience most fights deal out plenty of damage so if I was unable to heal between fights then I would be less willing to push on.  Especially with the new stabilisation rules, going into a Boss fight already half dead seems irresponsible.



Yes, healing to full before every fight is a feature. But god forbid you be able to do it overnight without the use of magic, amiright?


----------



## Shasarak (Mar 16, 2018)

Blue said:


> Cool story bro, now try actually reading what they posted.
> 
> You're not running out from healing, as you already commented on that they aren't running out at all in normal play.  What they did run out was a high level party trying to abuse cheap wands of cure light wounds to heal all the way up.
> 
> ...




If you think that wand healing is cheesy then I just have to assume you have a very limited experience with cheese.


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 16, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> But what happens when you run out of resonance?  Well nothing really unless you want to drink another healing potion in which case all of a sudden the magic stops working.
> 
> And that is what makes it the worst rule, it just exists to stop your fun.  Hey look at all your cool magic items you got there, too bad that you cant use them all.  Sucks to be you I guess.



One of the intents of the Resonance idea seems to be to move people away from "all your cool magic items you got there" and toward a lesser number of even cooler ones...which if it works will be good, but the designers will have to put some "cooler" items into the game to make it so.



> Because why do you "want" to spam your wand of cure?  Because you dont want to go into your adventure injured.



This is something I don't mind at all - forcing a choice onto the players/PCs as to whether to stop and rest (and let the foes rest also, and set up better defenses) or press on even though some characters are a-hurtin'.


> So if you cant use your healing then the obvious solution is to just go home and rest for the day which means it naturally feeds into a 5 minute work day.



It can, if the DM lets it.  A good DM will mix it up - sometimes the party can quite safely pack it in for the day after one good fight while other times if they pack it in they're just going to keep getting attacked and disturbed; and the PCs will never know the safety level until they try it...at which point it's too late. 


> I would say that this is just a classic example of unexpected consequences except of course that we already saw this exact problem in 4e and do we really need to touch that burning hot fire again? No, just No.



I think we need to see what PF2 is going to do with rest rules and hit-point recovery first.  If PF2 stays away from complete recovery on a long (or overnight) rest then this might not be so bad.  But if they go with the 4e-5e model then yeah, it'll be messy.

Lanefan


----------



## Shasarak (Mar 16, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> One of the intents of the Resonance idea seems to be to move people away from "all your cool magic items you got there" and toward a lesser number of even cooler ones...which if it works will be good, but the designers will have to put some "cooler" items into the game to make it so.




That is true we have not seen much in the way of magic items yet.



> This is something I don't mind at all - forcing a choice onto the players/PCs as to whether to stop and rest (and let the foes rest also, and set up better defenses) or press on even though some characters are a-hurtin'.
> 
> It can, if the DM lets it.  A good DM will mix it up - sometimes the party can quite safely pack it in for the day after one good fight while other times if they pack it in they're just going to keep getting attacked and disturbed; and the PCs will never know the safety level until they try it...at which point it's too late.




Ah, yes I have seen that suggestion of the "good" DM mixing it up and on the other hand game theory would suggest that if Players can not reliably rest then instead of the 5 minute work day they just default to the 4 minute work day just in case they get that "wandering monster' showing up.



> I think we need to see what PF2 is going to do with rest rules and hit-point recovery first.  If PF2 stays away from complete recovery on a long (or overnight) rest then this might not be so bad.  But if they go with the 4e-5e model then yeah, it'll be messy.
> 
> Lanefan




Ha yes, lets see if ol [MENTION=6779196]Charlaquin[/MENTION] gets to freak out or not.


----------



## lightblade (Mar 16, 2018)

So, I was listening to the Glass Cannon playtest podcast last night, and I thought I heard that wielded items didn't require resonance; only worn items and consumables did. Anyone else catch that tidbit?


----------



## Charlaquin (Mar 16, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> Ha yes, lets see if ol [MENTION=6779196]Charlaquin[/MENTION] gets to freak out or not.




...Huh?


----------



## Blue (Mar 16, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> If you think that wand healing is cheesy then I just have to assume you have a very limited experience with cheese.




When you can't defend against the message, attack the messenger.  _*sigh*_

Since Cure Light Wounds wands were specifically the abuse that Paizo brought up to discuss the need for Resonance, are you saying that you have a better idea, in aggregate, how the game is played and what complaints they have heard?


----------



## Shasarak (Mar 16, 2018)

Blue said:


> When you can't defend against the message, attack the messenger.  _*sigh*_
> 
> Since Cure Light Wounds wands were specifically the abuse that Paizo brought up to discuss the need for Resonance, are you saying that you have a better idea, in aggregate, how the game is played and what complaints they have heard?




Yes, I have better ideas but what exactly are the complaints they trying to address with Resonance?  If it is just healing wands they dont like then why not simply just remove healing wands as an option?

Say what you will about 5e but there is something about their idea of Story first that is much more appealing then gamist mechanics like Resonance.  Have you ever read a story where someone drank a healing potion which did not work because they were too resonanced out? No, of course not nobody has.  Instead we have a mechanic which works better if you are more attractive because obviously magic works better for good looking folk and frankly you were just too fat to heal, sorry Ugly Joe no offense.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Mar 16, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> Say what you will about 5e but there is something about their idea of Story first that is much more appealing then gamist mechanics like Resonance.



That is the most ridiculous thing that anyone has posted in these forums all week. Fifth edition is _highly_ Gamist, to the point where the Story is rendered incomprehensible. That is the _entire_ reason why PCs have Hit Dice to heal up between fights, and why everyone heals up to full overnight - it's all for the sake of making the game easier to play. If they cared about the story _at all_ then getting hit by an ogre's club is not something you would be able to brush off after a nap.



Shasarak said:


> Have you ever read a story where someone drank a healing potion which did not work because they were too resonanced out? No, of course not nobody has.



Nobody is stupid enough to drink a healing potion if they _know_ it's not going to do anything. What _does_ happen in stories is that characters are injured to the point where magical healing can't help them anymore, so it's nice that we might actually have to deal with something like that in-game.


----------



## Shasarak (Mar 16, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> That is the most ridiculous thing that anyone has posted in these forums all week.




Surely in a thread talking about Resonance it must only be the second most ridiculous thing that anyone has posted in these forums.  And yes I did call you Surely.



> Fifth edition is _highly_ Gamist, to the point where the Story is rendered incomprehensible. That is the _entire_ reason why PCs have Hit Dice to heal up between fights, and why everyone heals up to full overnight - it's all for the sake of making the game easier to play. If they cared about the story _at all_ then getting hit by an ogre's club is not something you would be able to brush off after a nap.




In 5e PCs do not actually get hit by Ogre clubs which is why they can fully recover over night and why they can walk it off between fights.  If you were using the 5e mechanics to tell the correct story then you would not be suffering from such severe cognitive dissonance right now.



> Nobody is stupid enough to drink a healing potion if they _know_ it's not going to do anything. What _does_ happen in stories is that characters are injured to the point where magical healing can't help them anymore, so it's nice that we might actually have to deal with something like that in-game.




You know I have never ever seen a story where people dont get given healing potions unless they are already dead and never ever seen a story where someone does not heal from a healing potion.

I mean how does a character even know that the healing potion is not going to do anything for them?  There is no way for them to tell without the totally gamist mechanic of the Player knowing how many resonance points they have left to spend.

And really if you just want Characters to die because they have run out of healing then why not just let them run out of healing and then die?  Rather then having healing available that somehow, dont know why exactly but if I was an Elf I would not be having this problem, does not work.


----------



## Charlaquin (Mar 16, 2018)

You heal Level x CON Mod HP when you rest, by the way. That came up in the podcast.


----------



## lightblade (Mar 16, 2018)

4E solved the cheap consumables problem with requiring Healing Surges to trigger potions. A low-level potion would heal a flat 10 hp, instead of your surge value (1/4 your HP, rounded down). This was a good deal at low levels, but absolutely terrible later on. This provided the incentive to not use cheap healing at high level.  (Though the CLW spam happened after PF encounters; in 4E a player would just spend surges during the short rest). Interestingly, Starfinder sort of sidesteps this with its separate tracking of HP, Stamina, and Resolve.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Mar 16, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> In 5e PCs do not actually get hit by Ogre clubs which is why they can fully recover over night and why they can walk it off between fights.  If you were using the 5e mechanics to tell the correct story then you would not be suffering from such severe cognitive dissonance right now.



If you roll to check whether the ogre hits you with his club, and the check says that the ogre has successfully hit you with his club, and your conclusion is that that the ogre didn't actually hit you with his club, then you need to get your story straight.

The reason why 5E uses narrative handwave HP is _because_ they make for less bookkeeping in gameplay, rather than because they make for a better story. A _reasonable_ story that involves a group of heroes fighting an ogre should at least include the _possibility_ of the ogre hitting someone without killing them outright, but the game mechanics omit that as a possible outcome; the game mechanics only allow that you were killed, or that the ogre didn't actually hit you.



Shasarak said:


> You know I have never ever seen a story where people dont get given healing potions unless they are already dead and never ever seen a story where someone does not heal from a healing potion.



I can't remember reading a story where healing potions were used on someone who hasn't actually been hit yet, because that would be a non-sensical story, which is the result of trying to play 5E straight. Most often, healing potions in stories are used on people who have been physically injured (but not killed), and the healing potion cures them of that physical injury.



Shasarak said:


> I mean how does a character even know that the healing potion is not going to do anything for them?  There is no way for them to tell without the totally gamist mechanic of the Player knowing how many resonance points they have left to spend.



If the mechanics of the game actually reflect the reality of the game world - which is the basic assumption of how role-playing games work - then the characters would _absolutely_ know that their ability to use magical items was tied to their willpower and personal magical strength. Characters can _obviously_ see the reality which corresponds to Resonance, just like they can tell how much HP damage they've taken by looking at their injuries (in Pathfinder, or most other RPGs, if not in 5E).


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 16, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> Nobody is stupid enough to drink a healing potion if they _know_ it's not going to do anything.



True, if you've reason to think it won't work.  Using this example...


> What _does_ happen in stories is that characters are injured to the point where magical healing can't help them anymore



 ...it's easy in this case for a player-as-PC to think the wounds are more than a potion can handle.  But if you're down 30 out of 75 hit points (which in 4e terms means you're not even bloodied yet) and want to knock back a potion to top up a bit, you've no reason on earth to think you're hurt badly enough that a potion can't help you; and so you down the potion, and nothing happens because you've used up all your magic resonance for the day.


> so it's nice that we might actually have to deal with something like that in-game.



Yes, so bring in that mechanic!  Bring in a body point/fatigue point system where maybe body points can't be healed by simple potions.

Something I'm picking up here is that an awful lot of the talk about Resonance is focusing strictly on healing - potions of curing, wands of CLW, etc.  It's going to hammer offensive magic from devices as well, depending how many passive items one has to power up in the morning.  It'll also clobber activated devices of detection or divination, which IME can get used quite a lot in exploration and info-gathering situations.



			
				Charlaquin said:
			
		

> You heal 1x CON Mod HP when you rest, by the way. That came up in the podcast.



Overnight rest, or a shorter rest?

If all you get for an overnight rest is your Con modifier in h.p. we're back to 1e days - love it!  Of course, it'll really suck if your Con modifier is 0; and if it's -1 does that mean you wake up less healthy than when you went to sleep?

I could get behind an overnight rest getting you back [level + Con mod] where "level" is your highest level in any one class (specifically to penalize multiclassers - I'm evil that way!) and "Con mod" is the greater of your Constitution modifier or 1.  So by this a 4th level single-class character would get back at least 5 h.p.

Lanefan


----------



## Charlaquin (Mar 16, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> If you roll to check whether the ogre hits you with his club, and the check says that the ogre has successfully hit you with his club, and your conclusion is that that the ogre didn't actually hit you with his club, then you need to get your story straight.



You're getting too caught up on the word "hit." The DM makes a check to see if the ogre's attempt to reduce your ability to stay in the fight was successful. The ogre does not need to hit you with his club to successfully reduce your ability to stay in the fight. It certainly _can_ be narrated that way, but that's not the _only_ way to narrate it.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Mar 16, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> True, if you've reason to think it won't work.  Using this example...
> ...it's easy in this case for a player-as-PC to think the wounds are more than a potion can handle.  But if you're down 30 out of 75 hit points (which in 4e terms means you're not even bloodied yet) and want to knock back a potion to top up a bit, you've no reason on earth to think you're hurt badly enough that a potion can't help you; and so you down the potion, and nothing happens because you've used up all your magic resonance for the day.



If the game world actually works the way that the rules describe, then the characters should know that it's based on how much of their personal magical energy they've invested that day, rather than how bad their wounds are. It's a similar situation to what happens in stories, but not quite the same. You can still have a scenario where you wake up from near-death, drink six potions, and then go back to rest because the potions can't help you anymore.



Lanefan said:


> If all you get for an overnight rest is your Con modifier in h.p. we're back to 1e days - love it!  Of course, it'll really suck if your Con modifier is 0; and if it's -1 does that mean you wake up less healthy than when you went to sleep?



Presumably there's a caveat giving a minimum of 1 per day, although this is already a bad sign that Constitution is going to be the omni-stat that everyone is forced to invest in. You see the same thing in 5E, where the rules just naturally assume everyone ever will have an above-average Con score.


----------



## Shasarak (Mar 16, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> If you roll to check whether the ogre hits you with his club, and the check says that the ogre has successfully hit you with his club, and your conclusion is that that the ogre didn't actually hit you with his club, then you need to get your story straight.




If your story was correct that the Ogre did hit you with his club then you obviously would not be able to recover fully from just resting overnight.  So then if you *can* recover from a nights rest then obviously your narrative about being hit by an ogres club must have been wrong.



> The reason why 5E uses narrative handwave HP is _because_ they make for less bookkeeping in gameplay, rather than because they make for a better story. A _reasonable_ story that involves a group of heroes fighting an ogre should at least include the _possibility_ of the ogre hitting someone without killing them outright, but the game mechanics omit that as a possible outcome; the game mechanics only allow that you were killed, or that the ogre didn't actually hit you.




Sorry man, but I have seen an edition that narrated everything in game mechanics and I cant do that again.  If you think that Dieing 2/3/4 tells a better story then you just have to find someone else to sneak you into Burma.



> I can't remember reading a story where healing potions were used on someone who hasn't actually been hit yet, because that would be a non-sensical story, which is the result of trying to play 5E straight. Most often, healing potions in stories are used on people who have been physically injured (but not killed), and the healing potion cures them of that physical injury.




I was under the impression that Healing Potions always worked in 5e, is that not the case?



> If the mechanics of the game actually reflect the reality of the game world - which is the basic assumption of how role-playing games work - then the characters would _absolutely_ know that their ability to use magical items was tied to their willpower and personal magical strength. Characters can _obviously_ see the reality which corresponds to Resonance, just like they can tell how much HP damage they've taken by looking at their injuries (in Pathfinder, or most other RPGs, if not in 5E).




I am not sure that I entirely approve of Characters talking like they can actually see their character sheet, that just breaks too much of the 4th wall for me I am afraid.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Mar 16, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> You're getting too caught up on the word "hit." The DM makes a check to see if the ogre's attempt to reduce your ability to stay in the fight was successful. The ogre does not need to hit you with his club to successfully reduce your ability to stay in the fight. It certainly _can_ be narrated that way, but that's not the _only_ way to narrate it.



Which is a bunch of handwavium to try and dance around the fact that characters can survive so many hits, which is only the case because not dying as quickly makes for slightly more-interesting gameplay.

Given how simplistic the model is, there's no narrative-vased reason for quantifying abstract things like "ability to stay in the fight" rather than definitive traits such as "how injured you are"; and honestly, the fact that 5E tracks _only_ the former, and has _no_ way to track the latter, is a serious deficiency in its mechanics.


----------



## Charlaquin (Mar 16, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Overnight rest, or a shorter rest?



They just called it a "rest," there was no qualifying language about the length of said rest. Though it was clear that they were resting overnight.



Lanefan said:


> If all you get for an overnight rest is your Con modifier in h.p. we're back to 1e days - love it!  Of course, it'll really suck if your Con modifier is 0; and if it's -1 does that mean you wake up less healthy than when you went to sleep?



Sorry, I mistyped. They regained *level* x Con mod HP, minimum of 1 HP. Their level just happened to be 1. That does raise the question though of if characters with +0 or lower in their Con only ever gain 1 HP per rest while their companions' rate of healing is increasing as they level.



Lanefan said:


> I could get behind an overnight rest getting you back [level + Con mod] where "level" is your highest level in any one class (specifically to penalize multiclassers - I'm evil that way!) and "Con mod" is the greater of your Constitution modifier or 1.  So by this a 4th level single-class character would get back at least 5 h.p.
> 
> Lanefan



I assume the intent is that it's multiplied by total character level.


----------



## Charlaquin (Mar 16, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> Which is a bunch of handwavium to try and dance around the fact that characters can survive so many hits, which is only the case because not dying as quickly makes for slightly more-interesting gameplay.



That, and the fact that characters somehow become able to survive more hits as they gain experience. But yes.



Saelorn said:


> Given how simplistic the model is, there's no narrative-vased reason for quantifying abstract things like "ability to stay in the fight" rather than definitive traits such as "how injured you are";



How injured you are isn't really any more quantifiable than how willing you are to fight. Unless you want to measure it in like... litres of blood in your body or something, but that'd be a really poor indicator of injury.



Saelorn said:


> and honestly, the fact that 5E tracks _only_ the former, and has _no_ way to track the latter, is a serious deficiency in its mechanics.



5E does track the latter. They're called failed death saving throws.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Mar 16, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> I was under the impression that Healing Potions always worked in 5e, is that not the case?



Healing potions in 5E _only_ cure HP damage, which is a problem because (as you mentioned) HP damage doesn't correspond to physical injury in 5E. If someone is down 10hp out of their 30hp total, then they're perfectly fine and definitely not injured in any way, so they have no reason to drink a potion that is supposed to heal physical injury. Instead, 5E healing potions are basically Gatorade, in that they'll refresh someone who is basically still okay, but they have no effect on someone who is actually injured (because the only way to suffer injury in 5E is if you're dead).



Shasarak said:


> I am not sure that I entirely approve of Characters talking like they can actually see their character sheet, that just breaks too much of the 4th wall for me I am afraid.



Characters don't talk about Resonance and HP. Characters talk about the in-game realities which are _reflected_ by the Resonance and HP mechanics.

The _players_ may end up talking about Resonance and HP, rather than the in-game realities which those rules reflect, if the rules are too fuzzy to figure out the correlation between the two. For example, if the rules say that HP corresponds to physical injury, then the players can talk about that physical injury rather than saying they're low on HP; but if HP is just handwavium that doesn't correspond to anything in the game world, then the players are forced to talk about them as HP because they have no alternative.


----------



## Charlaquin (Mar 16, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> Healing potions in 5E _only_ cure HP damage, which is a problem because (as you mentioned) HP damage doesn't correspond to physical injury in 5E. If someone is down 10hp out of their 30hp total, then they're perfectly fine and definitely not injured in any way, so they have no reason to drink a potion that is supposed to heal physical injury. Instead, 5E healing potions are basically Gatorade, in that they'll refresh someone who is basically still okay, but they have no effect on someone who is actually injured (because the only way to suffer injury in 5E is if you're dead).



Really, they should have swapped the names of healing potions and potions of vitality in 5e. Healing potions restore your vitality (hp) and potions of vitality restore your health (exhaustion levels).


----------



## Shasarak (Mar 16, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> Healing potions in 5E _only_ cure HP damage, which is a problem because (as you mentioned) HP damage doesn't correspond to physical injury in 5E. If someone is down 10hp out of their 30hp total, then they're perfectly fine and definitely not injured in any way, so they have no reason to drink a potion that is supposed to heal physical injury. Instead, 5E healing potions are basically Gatorade, in that they'll refresh someone who is basically still okay, but they have no effect on someone who is actually injured (because the only way to suffer injury in 5E is if you're dead).




Healing potions have never been able to bring someone back from the dead, so at least they are consistent in 5e.



> Characters don't talk about Resonance and HP. Characters talk about the in-game realities which are _reflected_ by the Resonance and HP mechanics.




Except that I have never heard anyone talk about their HP.  There is no realistic way that would happen.

Likewise the dissonance of the Smart but ugly Wizard being able to use less magic per day then the dumb but good looking Fighter.  I mean I can see the mechanics but the story behind it?  Yeah, no. 



> The _players_ may end up talking about Resonance and HP, rather than the in-game realities which those rules reflect, if the rules are too fuzzy to figure out the correlation between the two. For example, if the rules say that HP corresponds to physical injury, then the players can talk about that physical injury rather than saying they're low on HP; but if HP is just handwavium that doesn't correspond to anything in the game world, then the players are forced to talk about them as HP because they have no alternative.




Exactly what does Resonance correspond to in the game world?  If it is tied to your Charisma then do you start popping out facial warts every time you use an item? Was Frodo for example unable to use the one ring because he had already used his mithril armour, eleven bread and elven cloak for the day?  There is no narrative behind it like the Barbarian who can Rage x number of times per day after which he can just get really angry.


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 16, 2018)

Though I like the idea of trying to make Charisma more relevant, I'm starting to think Resonance might not be the best way to do this.

A different idea, and one that would allow each DM to tailor the magic-item use quota for her own game, would be to set Resonance at [character level plus {lowest, highest, something in between} stat], no matter which stat that is.  Thus a DM who wanted to see more magic used in her game would set Resonance at [level + highest stat], while a DM who wanted less would put it at [level + lowest stat] and a DM who wanted the vague middle might set it at [level + (average of all six stats*)]

* - which if using array would be a known quantity.


----------



## Nilbog (Mar 16, 2018)

I'm not entirely sold on Resonance, but I think a key point people seem to be overlooking is that once you are out of it, Items don't just stop working they require a roll to use.  

I'm not sure they've said what this roll is, but it still means things *could* work there is just a chance of failure


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 16, 2018)

Nilbog said:


> I'm not entirely sold on Resonance, but I think a key point people seem to be overlooking is that once you are out of it, Items don't just stop working they require a roll to use.
> 
> I'm not sure they've said what this roll is, but it still means things *could* work there is just a chance of failure



Cool.

Wonder if they'll build in a chance of a wild magic surge on failure...now *that* would be fun!


----------



## Henry (Mar 16, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> The nice thing about Resonance is that it incentivizes the use of more powerful items (e.g., Wand of CSW) rather than the spamming of lower-powered ones (e.g., Wand of CLW), as the former will count less against your Resonance than spamming the latter.



From a meta-game perspective, it also brings to mind what a single wand of cure light wounds could do for an entire community of people. Unlimited healing could change an entire community of farmers, or a city, dramatically.


----------



## Henry (Mar 16, 2018)

kenmarable said:


> For me, being able to be a magic item Christmas Tree can be fun. *Needing* to be a magic item Christmas Tree or else you fall behind is not so much fun. This is especially true for me who finds "+X to Y" to be extremely boring whether it's a magic item or feat, yet 3.x and I'd say even moreso with PF1 it kind of expects you to get a lot of those. I'm far more interested in "able to do X that you couldn't before" than in dull and boring "+X to Y" boosts.
> 
> So, _choosing_ to be a magic item Christmas Tree _decorated how I want_ can be a lot of fun. Being basically required to be a magic item Christmas Tree only decorated a certain way isn't so much fun.




Just as in real life, he who has the most toys wins. In the early days, things like mining for cryptocurrency could be fun; as time went on, only those with massive expensive rigs of dedicated GPUs would be able to see a return on investment, making it effectively impossible for the little guy to do the same thing.  I will say that very few fantasy stories I’ve read ever had a hero with more than two or three magical items called out on their persons.

Even Drizzt, a D&D novel character, the most egregious example, had at most about four at any one time (his cat, his two scimitars, and his cloak, and maybe one Macguffin of the week that was called out as a plot point in the story).



Lanefan said:


> Though I like the idea of trying to make Charisma more relevant, I'm starting to think Resonance might not be the best way to do this.
> 
> A different idea, and one that would allow each DM to tailor the magic-item use quota for her own game, would be to set Resonance at [character level plus {lowest, highest, something in between} stat], no matter which stat that is.  Thus a DM who wanted to see more magic used in her game would set Resonance at [level + highest stat], while a DM who wanted less would put it at [level + lowest stat] and a DM who wanted the vague middle might set it at [level + (average of all six stats*)]
> 
> * - which if using array would be a known quantity.




However, I don’t believe this would be this would be a meaningful enough differentiator, because you’re only talking about a difference of on average about four or five points depending on low or high magic, when level is going to quickly outstrip the ability modifier. However, just counting charisma will most really matter at low levels (level 6 and below), where the ability modifier is an appreciable fraction of your resonance score. Not saying resonance is particularly elegant anyway, but I think that may be intentional. The 10th level character will not care so much that their charisma is a 10 as the 3rd level character will.

By elegance, I mean that resonance doesn’t have that _“HOLY CRAP! OF COURSE!” {smacks forehead}_ effect for me that the three actions system had; waiting to see the full effect in play first.


----------



## Charlaquin (Mar 16, 2018)

Nilbog said:


> I'm not entirely sold on Resonance, but I think a key point people seem to be overlooking is that once you are out of it, Items don't just stop working they require a roll to use.
> 
> I'm not sure they've said what this roll is, but it still means things *could* work there is just a chance of failure



They have. It’s a straight-up d20 roll, no modifiers of any kind, DC 10 + 1 for each time you’ve used a magic item over your Resonance limit (so the first is DC10, the second is DC11, third is DC12, etc.) If you succeed, the item works. If you fail, it doesn’t work. If you fail by 10 or more (so, you’d have to get a natural 1 on your second try,1or 2 on your third.etc.) then you can’t use any more magic items for the day.


----------



## Aldarc (Mar 16, 2018)

Henry said:


> From a meta-game perspective, it also brings to mind what a single wand of cure light wounds could do for an entire community of people. Unlimited healing could change an entire community of farmers, or a city, dramatically.



This would also require rethinking many of the core assumptions about "wide magic" in Eberron. A war artificer, for example, could not just carry around a lot of fireball wands and spank the battlefield, as they would be limited by their Resonance.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Mar 16, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> 5E does track the latter. They're called failed death saving throws.



No, because if you pass your saves, you're back to full the next day with no indication that you were ever actually hit. It's impossible for anyone in 5E to be injured to such a degree that they aren't fine the next day, even if they were literally knocked unconscious and within six seconds of having died. The fact that they made their save is apparently proof that they were never actually injured in the first place. If you were severely wounded, then the only way we can know that is because you subsequently died. It's ridiculous.



Shasarak said:


> Healing potions have never been able to bring someone back from the dead, so at least they are consistent in 5e.



Fortunately, we're talking about Pathfinder right now, and all damage in Pathfinder must always have a significant physical component. Hence slow healing times, and hence healing potions that actually heal physical injury rather than combat fatigue. Pathfinder 2 will not make that same error which 5E did.



Charlaquin said:


> Except that I have never heard anyone talk about their HP.  There is no realistic way that would happen.



You have never heard the fighter say, after suffering a critical hit that took away more than half of their HP, anything along the lines of "Ow, that really hurt!" ? I mean, I'm not going to deny your lived experiences, but I hear that sort of thing almost every time there's a critical hit. HP (in most games) measures the physical integrity of your meat body, and the degree of injury is proportional to the damage inflicted. That's why the only factors that increase damage are things that would increase physical trauma (e.g. size of the weapon, strength of the wielder, extra sharpness in the form of enchantments, etc).



Charlaquin said:


> Likewise the dissonance of the Smart but ugly Wizard being able to use less magic per day then the dumb but good looking Fighter.  I mean I can see the mechanics but the story behind it?  Yeah, no.



Charisma has been the stat for measuring innate magical power for almost twenty years now. This isn't a reasonable place for you to draw that line. If you think Charisma shouldn't be the stat for innate magical power, then you need to fix the Bard and Paladin before the Wizard gets to complain about it. All they're doing here is being consistent with what's already been established.


----------



## Charlaquin (Mar 16, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> No, because if you pass your saves, you're back to full the next day with no indication that you were ever actually hit. It's impossible for anyone in 5E to be injured to such a degree that they aren't fine the next day, even if they were literally knocked unconscious and within six seconds of having died. The fact that they made their save is apparently proof that they were never actually injured in the first place. If you were severely wounded, then the only way we can know that is because you subsequently died. It's ridiculous.



Unless you use the lingering injury rules from the DMG, in which case you get an injury if you take two failed death saving throws. The first one is just damage superficial enough not to hinder you after you’ve rested for a night. The second is damage with a long-term effect. The third is death.


----------



## Sunseeker (Mar 16, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Unless you use the lingering injury rules from the DMG, in which case you get an injury if you take two failed death saving throws. The first one is just damage superficial enough not to hinder you after you’ve rested for a night. The second is damage with a long-term effect. The third is death.




Which is a fairly terrible system anyway, one can have two gimp legs and be missing a hand and still not be _dead_.  There's a usefulness in measuring _degrees_ of serious injury (did you lose a finger 1, or a foot 2, or an arm? 3) but there's not much usefulness in saying "You've got 3 bad boo-boos now you're DEAD!"  Abstracting injury to a simple number without valuing the degree is kinda...pointless.  Okay you could say that "All lingering injures are inherently life-threatening." but that seems to remove a degree of granularity that while not terribly game-breaking makes story-telling based off the mechanical outcomes more difficult.

It's sort of like if I were to describe the temperature as "hot".  Even if we all agree that anything over 80F is "hot", there's an important difference between when it is 85F and 140F.  

Which, bringing this back to Pathfinder: is something I like seeing in the conditions so far, even if they are limited tiers there's "Condition Name" followed by a numerical degree.


----------



## Charlaquin (Mar 16, 2018)

shidaku said:


> Which is a fairly terrible system anyway, one can have two gimp legs and be missing a hand and still not be _dead_.  There's a usefulness in measuring _degrees_ of serious injury (did you lose a finger 1, or a foot 2, or an arm? 3) but there's not much usefulness in saying "You've got 3 bad boo-boos now you're DEAD!"  Abstracting injury to a simple number without valuing the degree is kinda...pointless.  Okay you could say that "All lingering injures are inherently life-threatening." but that seems to remove a degree of granularity that while not terribly game-breaking makes story-telling based off the mechanical outcomes more difficult.
> 
> It's sort of like if I were to describe the temperature as "hot".  Even if we all agree that anything over 80F is "hot", there's an important difference between when it is 85F and 140F.



Right. So what it comes down to is, 5e’s system of tracking injury is not granular enough for your taste. That’s fine, and a very different argument than saying it’s fundamentally broken.



shidaku said:


> Which, bringing this back to Pathfinder: is something I like seeing in the conditions so far, even if they are limited tiers there's "Condition Name" followed by a numerical degree.



Agreed, I think that’s a good way of handling it. I do hope we don’t see too much Condition bloat though. Chronicles of Darkness introduced a Condition system in its second edition, which I thought was a great idea, but after about the third gameline to get updated to 2e, there are just way too many conditions. I hope they lean on existing conditions as much as possible rather than constantly inventing new conditions representing basically the same thing as an existing condition but with slightly different details


----------



## Shasarak (Mar 16, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> Fortunately, we're talking about Pathfinder right now, and all damage in Pathfinder must always have a significant physical component. Hence slow healing times, and hence healing potions that actually heal physical injury rather than combat fatigue. Pathfinder 2 will not make that same error which 5E did.




It must have been because you were specifically talking about 5e that I got confused.


----------



## Shasarak (Mar 16, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> Charisma has been the stat for measuring innate magical power for almost twenty years now. This isn't a reasonable place for you to draw that line. If you think Charisma shouldn't be the stat for innate magical power, then you need to fix the Bard and Paladin before the Wizard gets to complain about it. All they're doing here is being consistent with what's already been established.




So it sounds like you are happy that the good looking Fighter can use more magic then the Ugly Wizard then because Bard and Paladin?

Well everyone has an opinion I guess.


----------



## Charlaquin (Mar 16, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> So it sounds like you are happy that the good looking Fighter can use more magic then the Ugly Wizard then because Bard and Paladin?
> 
> Well everyone has an opinion I guess.



Charisma doesn’t represent physical beauty. It represents social magnetism.


----------



## Shasarak (Mar 16, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Charisma doesn’t represent physical beauty. It represents social magnetism.




Magic items are powered by social magnetism?


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Mar 16, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> So it sounds like you are happy that the good looking Fighter can use more magic then the Ugly Wizard then because Bard and Paladin?



No, I use house rules to fix the Bard and Paladin by making their magic more reliant on Intelligence and Wisdom respectively. Just because they're being consistent, it doesn't mean I necessarily agree with every decision.

Consistency is a very important part of game design. That they're following through on their established premise is more important than whether I agree with that premise.


----------



## Ancalagon (Mar 16, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Though I like the idea of trying to make Charisma more relevant, I'm starting to think Resonance might not be the best way to do this.
> 
> A different idea, and one that would allow each DM to tailor the magic-item use quota for her own game, would be to set Resonance at [character level plus {lowest, highest, something in between} stat], no matter which stat that is.  Thus a DM who wanted to see more magic used in her game would set Resonance at [level + highest stat], while a DM who wanted less would put it at [level + lowest stat] and a DM who wanted the vague middle might set it at [level + (average of all six stats*)]
> 
> * - which if using array would be a known quantity.



I'm pretty sure the goal of resonance is *not* to make charisma matter more...


----------



## Charlaquin (Mar 16, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> Magic items are powered by social magnetism?




Just like perception is powered by common sense, damage with bows is powered by hand-eye coordination, melee weapon accuracy is powered by muscle mass.... None of the Ability Scores have made a lick of sense since 2nd Edition, and even then they were pretty abstract.


----------



## Ancalagon (Mar 16, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> Which is a bunch of handwavium to try and dance around the fact that characters can survive so many hits, which is only the case because not dying as quickly makes for slightly more-interesting gameplay.
> 
> Given how simplistic the model is, there's no narrative-vased reason for quantifying abstract things like "ability to stay in the fight" rather than definitive traits such as "how injured you are"; and honestly, the fact that 5E tracks _only_ the former, and has _no_ way to track the latter, is a serious deficiency in its mechanics.



Thankfully, it's extremely easy in 5e to fix this problem: long rest only restores some hit dice, not HP.  That is what I did in my game.

There are problems in 5e that are hard to fix - the "proper number of encounters to balance short vs long rest classes" imposing a pace to the gm is one.  But many are easy to solve.


----------



## Shasarak (Mar 16, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> No, I use house rules to fix the Bard and Paladin by making their magic more reliant on Intelligence and Wisdom respectively. Just because they're being consistent, it doesn't mean I necessarily agree with every decision.
> 
> Consistency is a very important part of game design. That they're following through on their established premise is more important than whether I agree with that premise.




The whole idea of PF2 is to fix the problems not to double down.

Powered by social magnetism indeed.


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 16, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Charisma doesn’t represent physical beauty. It represents social magnetism.



It's historically always been seen as a bit of both, irregardless of how PF in particular might define it now.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Mar 16, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> The whole idea of PF2 is to fix the problems not to double down.
> 
> Powered by social magnetism indeed.



If you're arguing that we should replace the Charisma stat with something like a Magic stat, then I'm all on board for that! In the meantime, it's already been established that inherent magic falls under Charisma (for whatever reason), so that's the only logical and consistent place to tie Resonance.


----------



## Charlaquin (Mar 16, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> It's historically always been seen as a bit of both, irregardless of how PF in particular might define it now.




If you base you’re assessment of the game’s internal consistency on how its terms have historically been defined instead of how the game actually defines them, you’re naturally going to find it less internally consistent than it is written.


----------



## Shasarak (Mar 16, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Just like perception is powered by common sense, damage with bows is powered by hand-eye coordination, melee weapon accuracy is powered by muscle mass.... None of the Ability Scores have made a lick of sense since 2nd Edition, and even then they were pretty abstract.




You know I have never really had a problem with the idea that being stronger means you hit harder and being more deleterious means that you are more accurate.  To my perception that just makes common sense.


----------



## Charlaquin (Mar 16, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> You know I have never really had a problem with the idea that being stronger means you hit harder and being more deleterious means that you are more accurate.  To my perception that just makes common sense.




Being stronger makes you hit harder makes plenty of sense. Being stronger makes you more accurate doesn’t. Likewise, being more dexterous makes you more accurate makes sense. Being more dexterous makes your arrows hit harder doesn’t. Perception being based on common sense doesn’t make any sense. Plenty of people with 20/20 vision who have no common sense, and plenty of blind people with tons of it.

Really, it helps to just admit that the ability scores are arbitrary. Having high charisma means nothing more and nothing less than that you are good at the things that Charisma adds to. Primarily, that’s social skill rolls and inherent (as opposed to learned or granted) magic.


----------



## Shasarak (Mar 16, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Being stronger makes you hit harder makes plenty of sense. Being stronger makes you more accurate doesn’t. Likewise, being more dexterous makes you more accurate makes sense. Being more dexterous makes your arrows hit harder doesn’t. Perception being based on common sense doesn’t make any sense. Plenty of people with 20/20 vision who have no common sense, and plenty of blind people with tons of it.




Then I guess it is lucky that being stronger does not make you more accurate and being dexterous does not make your arrows hit harder then.

I dont know about having 20/20 vision though.  I can not remember any of my characters having their eye sight measured although certainly none of them needed glasses or anything like that.



> Really, it helps to just admit that the ability scores are arbitrary. Having high charisma means nothing more and nothing less than that you are good at the things that Charisma adds to. Primarily, that’s social skill rolls and inherent (as opposed to learned or granted) magic.




That would make sense if you believed that ability scores were arbitrary.  Personally I do not see any evidence of that except for the obvious example of magical items being powered by your personality.


----------



## Charlaquin (Mar 16, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> Then I guess it is lucky that being stronger does not make you more accurate and being dexterous does not make your arrows hit harder then.



Really? Then why am I more likely to hit with a longsword with 18 Strength than 8 Strength? Why do my bow attacks do more damage with 18 Dexterity than 8?



Shasarak said:


> I dont know about having 20/20 vision though.  I can not remember any of my characters having their eye sight measured although certainly none of them needed glasses or anything like that.



But yet your characters that had high wisdom were all better at seeing things than your characters with low wisdom. And they were also better at surviving in the wilderness. And at handling animals. And at first aid. And at resisting magical mental influence. And would have been better at Druidic magic. Seemingly all arbitrary correlations.



Shasarak said:


> That would make sense if you believed that ability scores were arbitrary.  Personally I do not see any evidence of that except for the obvious example of magical items being powered by your personality.



There are all sorts of weird correlations, born from the fact that the six ability scores were not invented to be able to handle any and every action a character might conceivably take. You may have grown used to many of these arbitrary correlations, but they’re there.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Mar 16, 2018)

I'm not concerned with resonance limits because I bet they'll be plenty of feats/class features that will alter/bypass it.


----------



## Shasarak (Mar 16, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Really? Then why am I more likely to hit with a longsword with 18 Strength than 8 Strength? Why do my bow attacks do more damage with 18 Dexterity than 8?




Because having higher strength means your blade does not just bounce off that armour you just hit.  Its just simple physics.  I am not sure why your bow attacks do more damage with an 18 Dex though.  Do you add your dex bonus to damage for some reason?



> But yet your characters that had high wisdom were all better at seeing things than your characters with low wisdom. And they were also better at surviving in the wilderness. And at handling animals. And at first aid. And at resisting magical mental influence. And would have been better at Druidic magic. Seemingly all arbitrary correlations.




You have certainly made it clear that you believe attributes are arbitrary so I am not sure if it is useful for me to explain why it makes sense to me that someone who has higher Wisdom is better at understanding the mysteries of Druidic magic while at the same time being better able to perceive the world around themselves.



> There are all sorts of weird correlations, born from the fact that the six ability scores were not invented to be able to handle any and every action a character might conceivably take. You may have grown used to many of these arbitrary correlations, but they’re there.




I remember the worst correlation i have seen until now was a character class that hit people with its constitution.  Making these types of arbitrary correlations just makes for worse stories.


----------



## Sunseeker (Mar 16, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Agreed, I think that’s a good way of handling it. I do hope we don’t see too much Condition bloat though. Chronicles of Darkness introduced a Condition system in its second edition, which I thought was a great idea, but after about the third gameline to get updated to 2e, there are just way too many conditions. I hope they lean on existing conditions as much as possible rather than constantly inventing new conditions representing basically the same thing as an existing condition but with slightly different details



I'm really hoping that we see conditions like "Panicked" rolled into things like "Frightened 2" or the ever expanding variants of "Dazed" and "Confused" rolled into a single condition with multiple tiers of how bad it is.  "Afraid" can easily cover Cowering, Frightened, Panicked, even if they want to use the old condition as a sub-condition "Afraid 2 - Panicked".  I mean I don't want to see 4 different Afraid entries, I hope they can trim it down to something like "When you reach Afraid 4 the following effect is applied to you: Everything you do is meaningless."


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Mar 16, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Then why am I more likely to hit with a longsword with 18 Strength than 8 Strength?



At least nominally, the point of the attack roll is to determine whether your attack is sufficient to _injure_ an opponent. If you're swinging a sword, then the primary factors involved in determining the possibility of _injury_ are your Strength and skill and the type of armor the enemy is wearing. If you were just trying to _touch_ the enemy with your sword, then Dexterity would be a factor and Strength would mostly not; but simply making contact with their armor would be insufficient to cause injury, and D&D has always classified a non-damaging hit as just a miss.

On a complete side note, the one rule in Pathfinder which bothered me more than any other was that spellcasters used Strength when making a melee touch attack to try and land a spell effect. It's easy to see how the rules got there, but there should have been a sanity check to catch that.


----------



## Charlaquin (Mar 16, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> Because having higher strength means your blade does not just bounce off that armour you just hit.  Its just simple physics.



Sure, if that’s how you want to define armor class. Now explain why having better hand-eye coordination makes unarmored characters’... err... clothing? harder to penetrate.



Shasarak said:


> I am not sure why your bow attacks do more damage with an 18 Dex though.  Do you add your dex bonus to damage for some reason?



Sorry, is that not standard in Pathfinder? It’s been a while since I’ve played it. But now, if being more likely to hit means hitting harder and being more likely to penetrate armor, then Dexterity _is_ making bow shots hit harder. Only now it’s also not doing more damage despite hitting harder.

It’s almost like a “hit” and “damage” have always been handwavium. Shocker.



Shasarak said:


> You have certainly made it clear that you believe attributes are arbitrary so I am not sure if it is useful for me to explain why it makes sense to me that someone who has higher Wisdom is better at understanding the mysteries of Druidic magic while at the same time being better able to perceive the world around themselves.



I mean, that’s fair. Kinda wish you’d apply the same logic to trying to convince me that it doesn’t make sense for your character with stronger inborn magical talent is better at using magic items though.



Shasarak said:


> I remember the worst correlation i have seen until now was a character class that hit people with its constitution.  Making these types of arbitrary correlations just makes for worse stories.



I assume you’re referring to a 4e class? Yeah, that sure was arbitrary. But at least 4e had the balls to admit that the ability scores have been arbitrary since the switch from specific subsystems for specific attribute related tasks to the unified d20 system instead of trying to make up in-universe explanations for nonsense things like everyone who’s good at aiming a bow also being good at sneaking, picking locks, and picking pockets.


----------



## Charlaquin (Mar 16, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> At least nominally, the point of the attack roll is to determine whether your attack is sufficient to _injure_ an opponent. If you're swinging a sword, then the primary factors involved in determining the possibility of _injury_ are your Strength and skill and the type of armor the enemy is wearing. If you were just trying to _touch_ the enemy with your sword, then Dexterity would be a factor and Strength would mostly not; but simply making contact with their armor would be insufficient to cause injury, and D&D has always classified a non-damaging hit as just a miss.



Yeah, I understand that AC is a highly abstract system and involves elements of both whether or not you make contact and whether or not that contact was sufficient to cause whatever the hell HP loss is. But the abstractness of that combat system causes the definitions of the physical attributes to break down. Which I don’t really see as a problem. But if you’re ok with strength making you more likely to damage a naked man with a sword, but not to hit him with a bow, Dexterity making you more likely to hit him with a bow but not with a sword, Strength making you more likely to bring whatever his HP represent down further with whatever a sword hit represents but Dexterity not making it more likely to do the same with whatever a bow hit represents, all of which he can potentially survive depending on a combination of how long he can hold his breath and how many goblins he’s killed... I don’t see how you would still be bothered by Charisma making you better at whatever kind of magic it is Paladins do. The Attributes make a nod to verisimilitude with what rolls they contribute to, just as HP makes a nod to verisimilitude with how it relates to physical wellbeing. But they’re just nods. They all break down if you look at them too closely. So sure, why not have pretty people be better at using magic items? It makes as much sense as people with good hearing all being good at training horses. More, in fact, because magic is made up, the writer can make it based on the user’s sex appeal if that’s the story they want to tell. Kinda reminds me of Xanth.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Mar 17, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Sure, if that’s how you want to define armor class. Now explain why having better hand-eye coordination makes unarmored characters’... err... clothing? harder to penetrate.



If you're asking why someone with high Dexterity has a bonus to AC, it's because an agile fighter is harder to land a telling blow against. They might dodge, or parry. AC is a combination of a lot of factors, of which the hardness of their armor is only one component.

If you're asking why Strength is the only factor in the attack roll, when the argument for Strength relies on the opponent being armored, it's because an armored opponent is a reasonable assumption and a nimble opponent is not. Of the monsters you might be fighting, the vast majority of them have armor-like hide which needs to be overcome. Of the humanoids you might be fighting, the vast majority of them are going to be wearing actual armor, and the ones who don't wear armor are magic. To contrast, the number of nimble monsters with flesh-like hide is rather negligible. And even if you were going against an unarmored peasant, for whatever reason, you are still more likely to cause significant injury to them if you are strong. Strength is always a factor in your chance to deal a telling blow, where your agility only occasionally matters.


Charlaquin said:


> Sorry, is that not standard in Pathfinder? It’s been a while since I’ve played it. But now, if being more likely to hit means hitting harder and being more likely to penetrate armor, then Dexterity _is_ making bow shots hit harder. Only now it’s also not doing more damage despite hitting harder.



Pathfinder doesn't use Dexterity to damage, outside of a few corner cases with obscure class abilities or feats. And the difference between swinging a sword and firing a bow, is that the ability to actually _impact_ your arrow against a target is a larger factor than how _hard_ it impacts if it _does_ hit, in determining whether or not you cause meaningful injury.

Think about it. Swinging a sword in an arc at a distance of two feet, actually touching the enemy is trivial and the hard part is hitting them hard enough to hurt. Firing a bow from a distance of 30 feet, actually touching the enemy is non-trivial and firing _harder_ isn't going to help much.


Charlaquin said:


> It’s almost like a “hit” and “damage” have always been handwavium. Shocker.



People say this often. Or rather, they say that combat is an abstraction and that you shouldn't look at anything too closely. While that's definitely true, the rhetoric can get out of hand sometimes, to the point where they forget that there _is_ an underlying logic which is grounded in reality at the base. The rules are abstract, but they aren't nearly as abstract as some would have you believe.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Mar 17, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> But if you’re ok with strength making you more likely to damage a naked man with a sword, but not to hit him with a bow, Dexterity making you more likely to hit him with a bow but not with a sword, Strength making you more likely to bring whatever his HP represent down further with whatever a sword hit represents but Dexterity not making it more likely to do the same with whatever a bow hit represents, all of which he can potentially survive depending on a combination of how long he can hold his breath and how many goblins he’s killed... I don’t see how you would still be bothered by Charisma making you better at whatever kind of magic it is Paladins do. The Attributes make a nod to verisimilitude with what rolls they contribute to, just as HP makes a nod to verisimilitude with how it relates to physical wellbeing.



I have a pretty good idea about what sort of reality corresponds to HP, and the difference between a hit and a miss with a sword or arrow. The system is extremely simplified compared to reality, but I understand where they're coming from with everything (in Pathfinder, not 5E). The rules all make some sort of sense.

The reason that Charisma-based magic bothers me comes down to a degree of complexity. I have a pretty good idea about how complex our real-world reality is, and the degree of simplification involved in translating that into game rules. It's not that Charisma-based magic is _unrealistic_, as much as it's more complicated than it _needs_ to be; it's more complicated than it _should_ be, given how simplified the combat model is. 

Wizards using Intelligence for magic and Sorcerers using Charisma for magic is a _lot_ like if longswords used Strength to hit and scimitars used Dexterity to hit. You could do it, and you could try and justify it if you really wanted to, but nothing else in the game uses so-detailed of a model and this would be incongruously complex.


----------



## Charlaquin (Mar 17, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> If you're asking why someone with high Dexterity has a bonus to AC, it's because an agile fighter is harder to land a telling blow against. They might dodge, or parry. AC is a combination of a lot of factors, of which the hardness of their armor is only one component.
> 
> If you're asking why Strength is the only factor in the attack roll, when the argument for Strength relies on the opponent being armored, it's because an armored opponent is a reasonable assumption and a nimble opponent is not. Of the monsters you might be fighting, the vast majority of them have armor-like hide which needs to be overcome. Of the humanoids you might be fighting, the vast majority of them are going to be wearing actual armor, and the ones who don't wear armor are magic. To contrast, the number of nimble monsters with flesh-like hide is rather negligible. And even if you were going against an unarmored peasant, for whatever reason, you are still more likely to cause significant injury to them if you are strong. Strength is always a factor in your chance to deal a telling blow, where your agility only occasionally matters.



But for some reason, being stronger makes you more likely to do whatever a “hit” is to a naked human being with two left feet and Dexterity doesn’t.



Saelorn said:


> Pathfinder doesn't use Dexterity to damage, outside of a few corner cases with obscure class abilities or feats. And the difference between swinging a sword and firing a bow, is that the ability to actually _impact_ your arrow against a target is a larger factor than how _hard_ it impacts if it _does_ hit, in determining whether or not you cause meaningful injury.
> 
> Think about it. Swinging a sword in an arc at a distance of two feet, actually touching the enemy is trivial and the hard part is hitting them hard enough to hurt. Firing a bow from a distance of 30 feet, actually touching the enemy is non-trivial and firing _harder_ isn't going to help much.



And yet, having higher Dexterity makes you more likely to do whatever a “hit” is to a 50-foot stone golem that has been magically rooted in place, but being able to use a bow with heavier draw strength doesn’t.



Saelorn said:


> People say this often. Or rather, they say that combat is an abstraction and that you shouldn't look at anything too closely. While that's definitely true, the rhetoric can get out of hand sometimes, to the point where they forget that there _is_ an underlying logic which is grounded in reality at the base. The rules are abstract, but they aren't nearly as abstract as some would have you believe.



It’s called _reductio ad absurdum_. It is ment to demonstrate the absurdity of an argument by applying it to its logical extremes. Because combat is abstract, arguments based on realism are absurd. The combat isn’t realistic, period. It has an internal logic, and that logic is partly based on comparison to similar real-life situations, but looking at the extreme cases makes it clear that the system is still not an accurate representation of reality. What arguments based on realism are trying to appeal to is willing suspension of disbelief. We know that D&D (or Pathfinder) combat is unrealistic, but we suspend that disbelief for the sake of our enjoyment of the game. The nods to versimilitude help make it easier for some people to suspend their disbelief. And the threshold for what people are willing to suspend disbelief about are different for different people. For you, it may be within your tolerance of willing suspension of disbelief that Strength, Dexterity, and Armor Class interact the way they do in Pathfinder, but beyond it that Charisma plays a role in Resonance. For others, both are within tolerance. Saying that the rule is bad when it “makes no sense” is a poor argument. Saying that you don’t like it because it breaks your suspension of disbelief is a perfectly valid opinion, but also a very different argument.


----------



## Charlaquin (Mar 17, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> I have a pretty good idea about what sort of reality corresponds to HP, and the difference between a hit and a miss with a sword or arrow. The system is extremely simplified compared to reality, but I understand where they're coming from with everything (in Pathfinder, not 5E). The rules all make some sort of sense.
> 
> The reason that Charisma-based magic bothers me comes down to a degree of complexity. I have a pretty good idea about how complex our real-world reality is, and the degree of simplification involved in translating that into game rules. It's not that Charisma-based magic is _unrealistic_, as much as it's more complicated than it _needs_ to be; it's more complicated than it _should_ be, given how simplified the combat model is.
> 
> Wizards using Intelligence for magic and Sorcerers using Charisma for magic is a _lot_ like if longswords used Strength to hit and scimitars used Dexterity to hit. You could do it, and you could try and justify it if you really wanted to, but nothing else in the game uses so-detailed of a model and this would be incongruously complex.



Sure, but now we’re out of the realm of “this is a bad rule because it’s unrealistic” and into the realm of “I dislike this rule because it strains my mental model of how the game world works.” Which is a very different conversation. I can certainly accept and respect that Charisma-based Resonance doesn’t work for you personally. It’s when you try to argue that its objectively a bad rule because realism that we have a problem.


----------



## Shasarak (Mar 17, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Sure, if that’s how you want to define armor class. Now explain why having better hand-eye coordination makes unarmored characters’... err... clothing? harder to penetrate.




I dont know, why does having better hand-eye coordination make unarmoured characters harder to hit?  That seems like a strange thing to happen for sure.




> Sorry, is that not standard in Pathfinder? It’s been a while since I’ve played it. But now, if being more likely to hit means hitting harder and being more likely to penetrate armor, then Dexterity _is_ making bow shots hit harder. Only now it’s also not doing more damage despite hitting harder.
> 
> It’s almost like a “hit” and “damage” have always been handwavium. Shocker.




It almost feels like I am discussing rules with someone that does not understand the rules.  Dexterity making bow shots hit harder?  How does that work?  Or maybe in which game does that work would be a better question.



> I mean, that’s fair. Kinda wish you’d apply the same logic to trying to convince me that it doesn’t make sense for your character with stronger inborn magical talent is better at using magic items though.




I thought you said that it was Social Magnetism that made you better at using magic items but now it is your inborn magical talent?  

In any case if I was to try and convince you then I would ask why a character with a lot of inborn magical talent like a Wizard is not inherently better at using magical items compared to someone with the magical talent of a rock like a Fighter who just has good social magnetism?  



> I assume you’re referring to a 4e class? Yeah, that sure was arbitrary. But at least 4e had the balls to admit that the ability scores have been arbitrary since the switch from specific subsystems for specific attribute related tasks to the unified d20 system instead of trying to make up in-universe explanations for nonsense things like everyone who’s good at aiming a bow also being good at sneaking, picking locks, and picking pockets.




That is not dead which can eternal lie.


----------



## Shasarak (Mar 17, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> More, in fact, because magic is made up, the writer can make it based on the user’s sex appeal if that’s the story they want to tell. Kinda reminds me of Xanth.




I used to enjoy those books when I was about 13.  Good old Piers Anthony and David Eddings eh.  Whatever happened to the times where having Thief land next to Horse land made sense.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Mar 17, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> But for some reason, being stronger makes you more likely to do whatever a “hit” is to a naked human being with two left feet and Dexterity doesn’t.



A "hit" is a telling blow which causes significant physical injury, and a stronger character is more likely to land one of those with their sword than a more agile character is. Maybe not by much, in this situation, but this _is_ an absurd corner-case scenario which is unlikely to show up during the game. The concept of rule efficiency is a design ideal which gives preference to modeling likely scenarios over unlikely scenarios. If the model doesn't work _as well_ in absurd corner-case scenarios which are unlikely to ever come up, then that's considered an acceptable compromise for making the game easier to run.



Charlaquin said:


> And yet, having higher Dexterity makes you more likely to do whatever a “hit” is to a 50-foot stone golem that has been magically rooted in place, but being able to use a bow with heavier draw strength doesn’t.



Ditto. You could make the situation even more absurd if you place that golem ten feet away, such that aiming is even less of a factor, but this simply isn't a scenario which the rules were designed to model.



Charlaquin said:


> Because combat is abstract, arguments based on realism are absurd. The combat isn’t realistic, period. It has an internal logic, and that logic is partly based on comparison to similar real-life situations, but looking at the extreme cases makes it clear that the system is still not an accurate representation of reality.



All models are necessarily abstract, to some degree. It's impossible to build a perfectly accurate model which is any less complex than the behavior which it is modeling. The way that RPGs get around this is by making sweeping generalizations that let them reduce complex situations to less-complex ones. For example, in Pathfinder, your ability to climb is directly tied to your ability to swim, and it's impossible for someone to be good at one but not the other (at least in the core rules). The rules assume that you're wearing armor, or there's some other explanation for why we don't care about blood loss, and that lets us exclude another chunk of reality from our model.

It's a lot like doing physics homework. We want to find out what happens next, but the actual math would be far too complicated to solve in a reasonable amount of time, so we keep making simplifying assumptions until such point that it _is_ solvable in a reasonable amount of time. That doesn't make it any less based-in-reality; it just means it's limited to a sub-set of reality which happens to fit our simplifying assumptions. The best model is the one which gives us the closest answer with the least amount of work, and it's preferable if it can also apply to a wider range of situations.


Charlaquin said:


> Sure, but now we’re out of the realm of “this is a bad rule because it’s unrealistic” and into the realm of “I dislike this rule because it strains my mental model of how the game world works.” Which is a very different conversation. I can certainly accept and respect that Charisma-based Resonance doesn’t work for you personally. It’s when you try to argue that its objectively a bad rule because realism that we have a problem.



I think there's been a miscommunication on this point. I actually argued that Charisma-based Resonance is entirely consistent with what we know about how the game world is supposed to work, and my only real objection is in the unusual complexity which it adds to the model. They could be more efficient with their rules if they used something like a Magic stat instead of splitting effects between Int and Charisma.


----------



## Shasarak (Mar 17, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> It’s called _reductio ad absurdum_. It is ment to demonstrate the absurdity of an argument by applying it to its logical extremes. Because combat is abstract, arguments based on realism are absurd. The combat isn’t realistic, period. It has an internal logic, and that logic is partly based on comparison to similar real-life situations, but looking at the extreme cases makes it clear that the system is still not an accurate representation of reality. What arguments based on realism are trying to appeal to is willing suspension of disbelief. We know that D&D (or Pathfinder) combat is unrealistic, but we suspend that disbelief for the sake of our enjoyment of the game. The nods to versimilitude help make it easier for some people to suspend their disbelief. And the threshold for what people are willing to suspend disbelief about are different for different people. For you, it may be within your tolerance of willing suspension of disbelief that Strength, Dexterity, and Armor Class interact the way they do in Pathfinder, but beyond it that Charisma plays a role in Resonance. For others, both are within tolerance. Saying that the rule is bad when it “makes no sense” is a poor argument. Saying that you don’t like it because it breaks your suspension of disbelief is a perfectly valid opinion, but also a very different argument.




I do not believe that combat is as abstract as you claim.  Already we have things like a strong person is able to hit more easily and do more damage, someone with good hand eye coordination can shoot better, someone wearing Plate armour is harder to hit and do damage to.

If we had truly abstract combat then we would just be quoting mathematical equations at each other.


----------



## Charlaquin (Mar 17, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> I dont know, why does having better hand-eye coordination make unarmoured characters harder to hit?  That seems like a strange thing to happen for sure.



Precisely. Yet more evidence that the Abilities and what they add their bonuses to are ultimately arbitrary.



Shasarak said:


> It almost feels like I am discussing rules with someone that does not understand the rules.  Dexterity making bow shots hit harder?  How does that work?  Or maybe in which game does that work would be a better question.



There are at least two editions of D&D in which it works that way. Sorry I got my systems mixed up.



Shasarak said:


> I thought you said that it was Social Magnetism that made you better at using magic items but now it is your inborn magical talent?



It’s your Charisma. The stat that adds to both social skill checks and the magic that sorcerers (the class defined by their magic being an inborn trait rather than being learned like wizards or granted by external forces like clerics) do. People with high charisma are objectively more socially magnetic, make better sorcerers, and under this resonance rule, better at using magic items. Tell me again about how what the Abilities represent isn’t arbitrary? 



Shasarak said:


> In any case if I was to try and convince you then I would ask why a character with a lot of inborn magical talent like a Wizard is not inherently better at using magical items compared to someone with the magical talent of a rock like a Fighter who just has good social magnetism?



Wizards don’t have more inborn magical talent. That’s sorcerers’ shtick. Wizards’ magic is learned. And just because a fighter doesn’t have spells doesn’t mean he has the magical talent of a rock. If he had been a sorcerer, he’d be pretty good at it, so evidently he has the raw potential for magic, even if it’s untapped. Now further evidenced by the fact that he makes a better battery for magic wands than the wizard does.



Shasarak said:


> That is not dead which can eternal lie.



And with strange aeons even death may die, but why are we quoting scripture?


----------



## Charlaquin (Mar 17, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> I used to enjoy those books when I was about 13.  Good old Piers Anthony and David Eddings eh.  Whatever happened to the times where having Thief land next to Horse land made sense.




Those books were my gateway drug to D&D. My friends’ older siblings played a D&D campaign set in Xanth, and while they never let me play with them, I always thought it seemed super cool, which is why I looked into it myself.


----------



## Shasarak (Mar 17, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Precisely. Yet more evidence that the Abilities and what they add their bonuses to are ultimately arbitrary.




That is like saying wearing a blue shirt makes it harder to hit an un-armoured character and therefore that is more evidence that Abilities are arbitrary.  Neither statement makes any real sense.



> There are at least two editions of D&D in which it works that way. Sorry I got my systems mixed up.




I would agree that some editions are definitely more arbitrary then others.



> It’s your Charisma. The stat that adds to both social skill checks and the magic that sorcerers (the class defined by their magic being an inborn trait rather than being learned like wizards or granted by external forces like clerics) do. People with high charisma are objectively more socially magnetic, make better sorcerers, and under this resonance rule, better at using magic items. Tell me again about how what the Abilities represent isn’t arbitrary?




You certainly have presented some good evidence for why choosing Charisma as your "Magic" stat is pretty arbitrary.  Almost makes it seem nonsensical in fact.  



> Wizards don’t have more inborn magical talent. That’s sorcerers’ shtick. Wizards’ magic is learned. And just because a fighter doesn’t have spells doesn’t mean he has the magical talent of a rock. If he had been a sorcerer, he’d be pretty good at it, so evidently he has the raw potential for magic, even if it’s untapped. Now further evidenced by the fact that he makes a better battery for magic wands than the wizard does.




Of course that is the point, if the Fighter had magic then he would have been a Sorcerer but he didnt so he is not.  I dont really get your argument that Wizards are not inherently magical while at the same time suggesting that a Fighter very well could be magical.  One of these guys can cast spells and the other one is the Fighter so I am not sure where the confusion is?  Is it because classes are arbitrary too?



> And with strange aeons even death may die, but why are we quoting scripture?




I am because I am superstitious but I am not sure why you are.


----------



## Charlaquin (Mar 17, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> That is like saying wearing a blue shirt makes it harder to hit an un-armoured character and therefore that is more evidence that Abilities are arbitrary.  Neither statement makes any real sense.



Except that wearing a blue shirt has nothing to do with Abilities.



Shasarak said:


> I would agree that some editions are definitely more arbitrary then others.



Some editions are more honest about the arbitrary nature of Abilities than others. They’re always arbitrary, but some editions try to pretend they make sense and others don’t.



Shasarak said:


> You certainly have presented some good evidence for why choosing Charisma as your "Magic" stat is pretty arbitrary.  Almost makes it seem nonsensical in fact.



It doesn’t really make any less sense than intelligence being a magic stat. Or Wisdom. Or hell, Dexterity if you want to go Avatar the Last Airbebder with it. And it makes a lot more sense than Wisdom being both the “see things good” and the “do first aid good” stat, considering the fact that unlike magic those are both real life traits that in real life have nothing to do with each other.



Shasarak said:


> Of course that is the point, if the Fighter had magic then he would have been a Sorcerer but he didnt so he is not.



But he has the potential for sorcerous magic that he has not fulfilled. As evidenced by the fact that he has high Charisma and high Charisma is what makes one good at being a Sorcerer. Like... My partner’s dad had ing amazing artistic talent, but he worked as a carpenter all his life. If he had become a painter, he probably could have been great at it. But he didn’t. Unfulfilled potential.



Shasarak said:


> I dont really get your argument that Wizards are not inherently magical while at the same time suggesting that a Fighter very well could be magical.  One of these guys can cast spells and the other one is the Fighter so I am not sure where the confusion is?



Are you intentionally ignoring the words “inherent” and “learned” or is your reading comprehension actually failing you? A sorcerer is born with magic. A wizard is not, and learns it through study. Charisma is what makes a sorcerer better at magic. Ergo, in the fictional world implied by these setting assumptions, Charisma equates to _inherent_ magical potential. Those who do not have such potential, or who have it but fail to tap into it, can potentially learn magic anyway, through hard work and study, in which case Intelligence is what makes them better at this learned form of magic.


----------



## Shasarak (Mar 17, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Except that wearing a blue shirt has nothing to do with Abilities.




Saying that "having better hand-eye coordination make unarmoured characters harder to hit" does not actually mean that "having better hand-eye coordination make unarmoured characters harder to hit".  I have never heard of that suggestion being true which makes it as likely as wearing a blue shirt making it harder to hit.



> Some editions are more honest about the arbitrary nature of Abilities than others. They’re always arbitrary, but some editions try to pretend they make sense and others don’t.




And look what happens to the one that does not make sense.



> It doesn’t really make any less sense than intelligence being a magic stat. Or Wisdom. Or hell, Dexterity if you want to go Avatar the Last Airbebder with it. And it makes a lot more sense than Wisdom being both the “see things good” and the “do first aid good” stat, considering the fact that unlike magic those are both real life traits that in real life have nothing to do with each other.




I dont care how many times you tell me that being able to see things good and do first aid good have nothing to do with each other because there is no way that I am letting the blind surgeon do any first aid to me.  That is just rule 1 of surviving operations 101.



> But he has the potential for sorcerous magic that he has not fulfilled. As evidenced by the fact that he has high Charisma and high Charisma is what makes one good at being a Sorcerer. Like... My partner’s dad had ing amazing artistic talent, but he worked as a carpenter all his life. If he had become a painter, he probably could have been great at it. But he didn’t. Unfulfilled potential.
> 
> Are you intentionally ignoring the words “inherent” and “learned” or is your reading comprehension actually failing you? A sorcerer is born with magic. A wizard is not, and learns it through study. Charisma is what makes a sorcerer better at magic. Ergo, in the fictional world implied by these setting assumptions, Charisma equates to _inherent_ magical potential. Those who do not have such potential, or who have it but fail to tap into it, can potentially learn magic anyway, through hard work and study, in which case Intelligence is what makes them better at this learned form of magic.




Being a Wizard is no more a "learned" skill then a Sorcerer is an "inherent" skill.  You can "learn" to be a Sorcerer as easily as you can "inherently" become a Wizard.  A Wizard does not have to work hard to learn magic anymore then a Rogue has to work hard to learn to pick pockets.


----------



## Mark Craddock (Mar 17, 2018)

Blue said:


> Three solutions that are close, because all three are solving the same problem.




Add in that many of these designers know each other and might be friends. I think some of us would just like them to be honest and say that "we looked at the latest d20 tech (which is a good thing) and adapted what we thought would work".

IMO, PF2 sound quite a bit like DnD 4 and 5. It would be foolish to overlook certain ideas found in both games. Advantage/Disadvantage is an idea that many people like in gamed derived from DnD. Doesn't mean they all have to use it, but if it works it should be considered.


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 17, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> Being a Wizard is no more a "learned" skill then a Sorcerer is an "inherent" skill.



Actually I've always seen Wizard as being very much a learned skill - sure you've got some built-in aptitude but it's irrelevant until you do the years of study required to learn how to channel it.

Sorcerers just come by it naturally...which is the one aspect of Sorcerers I've never quite grabbed on to.



> You can "learn" to be a Sorcerer as easily as you can "inherently" become a Wizard.  A Wizard does not have to work hard to learn magic anymore then a Rogue has to work hard to learn to pick pockets.



Again, I see picking pockets as something a Rogue might work for years to learn how to do.

It's just that by the time we start playing them our characters have already done all this stuff, and so we ignore it.


----------



## Shasarak (Mar 17, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Actually I've always seen Wizard as being very much a learned skill - sure you've got some built-in aptitude but it's irrelevant until you do the years of study required to learn how to channel it.
> 
> Sorcerers just come by it naturally...which is the one aspect of Sorcerers I've never quite grabbed on to.
> 
> ...




So what happens when the 4th level Fighter picks up a level of Wizard?  In my games they did not need to spend years learning how to cast spells, I am guessing that it was different in your games.


----------



## kenmarable (Mar 17, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Actually I've always seen Wizard as being very much a learned skill - sure you've got some built-in aptitude but it's irrelevant until you do the years of study required to learn how to channel it.
> 
> Sorcerers just come by it naturally...which is the one aspect of Sorcerers I've never quite grabbed on to.
> 
> ...




Exactly, plus beyond the “Intuitive/Self Taught/Trained” starting age modifiers, there’s no rules around it at all, so it’s completely up to the campaign world fluff. An Int caster who studies a spell book each day vs. a Cha caster who uses the magic in their blood might lend itself to certain ideas but you could just as easily say wizards in your world master magic quickly because they just follow pre-written rules and sorcerers spend years in specialized training to find and control the magic within without harming themselves. Other than the easily ignored or modified starting age table, there is zero mechanical difference. So whatever fluff people want works. 



Shasarak said:


> So what happens when the 4th level Fighter picks up a level of Wizard?  In my games they did not need to spend years learning how to cast spells, I am guessing that it was different in your games.




FWIW, in my campaign in that situation, the player nearly always leads up to it story-wise rather than just picking it up. Actually most multiclassing in my campaigns are more like a blending concept that requires more than one class rather than a “career-change” sort of multiclassing. But when that happens, players in my campaigns have naturally included some pre-learning prior to the change. Of course, there’s also a healthy dose of on-the-job training working much faster. Sitting in a classroom might take years to learn the basics, but having monsters trying to kill you every day accelerates training just a bit.


----------



## Charlaquin (Mar 17, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> So what happens when the 4th level Fighter picks up a level of Wizard?  In my games they did not need to spend years learning how to cast spells, I am guessing that it was different in your games.




A lot of DMs will require players to get some kind of specialized training in order to multiclass. You want your next level to be in wizard? You’ll need to find yourself a mentor to teach you the basics. You want a level in rogue? Hang out with some underworld types and get them to show you some tricks of the trade. Want a level in Monk? Go to your local monestary and start practicing katas. Etc.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Mar 17, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> So what happens when the 4th level Fighter picks up a level of Wizard?  In my games they did not need to spend years learning how to cast spells, I am guessing that it was different in your games.



In fifth edition, you need extraordinary mental aptitude in order to pick up wizardry without having gone through the normal years of schooling. That is literally the explanation for pre-requisite ability scores to multi-class, is that you need natural talent in order to learn things so quickly.

In third edition, wizards had a higher starting age than sorcerers, to reflect their years of study. It took humans ~7 years to become a level 1 wizard (or druid or monk), compared to ~2 years for a sorcerer (or rogue or barbarian). If you multi-classed, then you had to stop for a while and train, and possibly pay someone to teach you; training rules were in the DMG, but mostly ignored.

In AD&D, multi-classing was something you did before the campaign started, and dual-classing was something that humans could do between adventures. Going from fighter to wizard required you to have Intelligence 17, again because you need extraordinary mental aptitude in order to learn a new class so quickly. (You also needed Strength 15, in order to maintain your fighter level while you worked on your wizardry.)

The idea that you could just pick up a level of wizard, and it was no big deal, was something born out of laziness in third edition, by players who didn't actually care about how the world was supposed to work. Fourth edition made it worse, with its easy retraining rules, but fourth edition never even pretended to care about how the world worked.


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 17, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> So what happens when the 4th level Fighter picks up a level of Wizard?  In my games they did not need to spend years learning how to cast spells, I am guessing that it was different in your games.



I've got houserules in my game for if someone wants to pick up a class they didn't have before.  Let's just say it's not an overnight process.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Mar 18, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> So what happens when the 4th level Fighter picks up a level of Wizard?  In my games they did not need to spend years learning how to cast spells, I am guessing that it was different in your games.




There's an OOTS comic for that...

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0126.html


----------



## Shasarak (Mar 18, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> In fifth edition, you need extraordinary mental aptitude in order to pick up wizardry without having gone through the normal years of schooling. That is literally the explanation for pre-requisite ability scores to multi-class, is that you need natural talent in order to learn things so quickly.
> 
> In third edition, wizards had a higher starting age than sorcerers, to reflect their years of study. It took humans ~7 years to become a level 1 wizard (or druid or monk), compared to ~2 years for a sorcerer (or rogue or barbarian). If you multi-classed, then you had to stop for a while and train, and possibly pay someone to teach you; training rules were in the DMG, but mostly ignored.
> 
> ...




In Pathfinder you go up a level as soon as you have enough XP to do so.   Actually since 2e really unless you were using the optional training rules.

It sounds like [MENTION=51168]MichaelSomething[/MENTION] really gets it.


----------



## houser2112 (Mar 20, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> I think there's been a miscommunication on this point. I actually argued that Charisma-based Resonance is entirely consistent with what we know about how the game world is supposed to work, and my only real objection is in the unusual complexity which it adds to the model. They could be more efficient with their rules if they used something like a Magic stat instead of splitting effects between Int and Charisma.




For me, if there's going to be a stat to determine how often you can use magic items, Charisma is the one to use, for sorcerer reasons. My only real objection is that such a rule is stupid in the first place and violates verisimilitude hard.


----------



## Arakasius (Mar 20, 2018)

Any more so than 5e only allowing 3 attuned items?


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 20, 2018)

Re Resonance: I think they're killing the wonderful idiosyncrasies about magic items.

Streamlining that is actually a negative.

Nobody complained having to keep track of uses per day was a problem. 

Resonance is solving what isn't a problem.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 20, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Nobody complained having to keep track of uses per day was a problem.




Are you sure about that?


----------



## Arakasius (Mar 20, 2018)

Yeah that's a pretty bold statement to make. Having the christmas tree effect and having to track it all seperately is a pretty big negative for PF1. Like sure I understand people want to have their cute trinkets, but I'd rather have a more streamlined game.


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 20, 2018)

Arakasius said:


> Yeah that's a pretty bold statement to make. Having the christmas tree effect and having to track it all seperately is a pretty big negative for PF1. Like sure I understand people want to have their cute trinkets, but I'd rather have a more streamlined game.



The same streamlining can be achieved by making more of the items either always-on or one-shot and reducing the number of charged or per-day items given out.

More scrolls, potions, and permanent items; fewer wands and per-day items.  Problem solved.


----------



## Arakasius (Mar 20, 2018)

They like their per day items. They also wand wands to exist, so having “fewer” to fix PFS would mean 0 wands of CLW. I don’t think they want to cut out iconic items to achieve balance. Tons of flavorful items in PF are activatable usage. I don’t think cutting those out is a realistic design decision.

edit: Plus they’re removing a lot of passive bonus items. Those types of items aren’t very fun and tend to screw up math and make differences between characters too vast. I expect the majority of items in PF2 to be cool activatable usages.


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 21, 2018)

Morrus said:


> Are you sure about that?



I guess there's always at least one gamer complaining about each given detail, so technically "no".

Do YOU feel it was a huge problem, Morrus? 

Can you see how the "magic" of magic can be considered to go missing (ie my argument) when rationality and tidiness is allowed to take over idiosyncratic exceptions?


----------



## houser2112 (Mar 21, 2018)

Arakasius said:


> Any more so than 5e only allowing 3 attuned items?




Attunement is a stupid rule, too.


----------



## Arakasius (Mar 21, 2018)

Right, neither is a rule that makes sense. But having a game where you carry 20 magic items with all their tracking is dumb. I’m fairly sure most gamers want a more streamlined systems than that. But all rulings like this are going to break “realism” however they justify this. PF2 is trying (like 5e did) to have a game where you make choices on what magic items you want to use. This will allow them to make magic items more powerful and meaningful in their application.

There is a lot of advantages to this over the current status quo:
1. Gets rid of Xmas tree
2. Simplifies tracking to one number
3. Like 5e forces the player to make choices on what they want to keep/use
4. Allows them to keep all the items they want from PF1
5. Fixes spamming of low level spells from items

Does it break verisimilitude a bit? Sure, especially in comparison to trinketland PF1, but it will make for a more enjoyable game. I do expect this is the rule introduced so far most likely to change, but I’m fairly sure there will be some limit on magic items. It’s possible they make resonance only apply to wand/potion/activatable usage and then allow players to equip as many things as they want. They can balance the passive magic item use by not making many of them and making them really niche.


----------



## Shasarak (Mar 21, 2018)

I have never heard a Player tell me that they had too many magical items.

The Magical Christmas tree is purely an Internet artifact with no basis in reality.


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 21, 2018)

Arakasius said:


> They like their per day items. They also wand wands to exist, so having “fewer” to fix PFS would mean 0 wands of CLW.



0 wands of CLW sounds like a mighty good start.  Keep going... 


> I don’t think they want to cut out iconic items to achieve balance.



If the wand of CLW has achieved 'iconic' status things have become worse than I thought.  


> Tons of flavorful items in PF are activatable usage. I don’t think cutting those out is a realistic design decision.



I'm not saying cut them all out, just cut out what they can.



> edit: Plus they’re removing a lot of passive bonus items. Those types of items aren’t very fun and tend to screw up math and make differences between characters too vast. I expect the majority of items in PF2 to be cool activatable usages.



Which, if true, will only serve to make Resonance a more scarce resource.  My worry here is that as non-casters kinda have to rely on magic items to do anything magical this might swing the pendulum even further in favour of casters...particularly if the static-bonus items warrior-types tend to rely on all become activated-use.


----------



## Arakasius (Mar 21, 2018)

Shasarak lots of players like low magic games. They like their class features to define them not all the magic items that they carry. It certainly has basis in reality, both in myself and people I play with.


----------



## Shasarak (Mar 21, 2018)

Arakasius said:


> Shasarak lots of players like low magic games. They like their class features to define them not all the magic items that they carry. It certainly has basis in reality, both in myself and people I play with.




If you like low magic games then you would not collect a magic collection because you like your class features to define your character.

If you collect a magic collection then you do not want a low magic game because otherwise why would you collect a complete set of magic items.

How do you explain this discrepancy?


----------



## Arakasius (Mar 22, 2018)

Because in PF1 being a magical Christmas tree is the only way to keep your character relevant. The big 6 are absolutely necessary as are other items. Also APs and such have a glut of magic items, so you can’t help but be inundated with them. It’s how PF1 was designed and how the APs are written. Sure I could just not take the loot given from adventures, but that seems kind of silly. So instead you get this situation where you have tons of items that might be useful in some specific situation that likely never comes up along with your magic weapon, armor, cloak, belt, headband, two rings and a neckpiece. Even without any fluff items you can’t help but be a Christmas tree, and pf has a ton of fluff items.


----------



## Shasarak (Mar 22, 2018)

So you say that you want a low magic game and you also want to use tons of items.

I see how that could be a problem for you.


----------



## Arakasius (Mar 22, 2018)

I don't want to use those items, so I'm not sure why you're interpreting my post that way. It's just they're necessary for the math of the game to work for your saves/to hit to keep up. That is why pathfinder unchained came out with automated progression system for those stats so you can get rid of those items.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/unchained-rules/automatic-bonus-progression/

This is a good optional rule and PF2 seems to be taking a lot of unchained to heart in making PF2.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Mar 22, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> So you say that you want a low magic game and you also want to use tons of items.



The player doesn't want those items, because they would rather play in a lower-magic setting.

The character has to deal with the reality that they live in a world where there is a lot of magic and where you must cover yourself in magical trinkets in order to survive, regardless of their personal feelings on the topic, so the player is carried along for the ride.


----------



## Shasarak (Mar 22, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> The player doesn't want those items, because they would rather play in a lower-magic setting.




So then play in a lower magic setting.  I have seen [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] talk about his low magic Primeval Thule setting so it is possible.  Golarion and the Forgotten Realms are not low magic settings though.



> The character has to deal with the reality that they live in a world where there is a lot of magic and where you must cover yourself in magical trinkets in order to survive, regardless of their personal feelings on the topic, so the player is carried along for the ride.




The fact is that you do not need all of that stuff.  Sure you will not get a bonus to your saves because you dont have a magic cloak but that means you have to rely on your characters abilities to survive - just like [MENTION=6944960]Arakasius[/MENTION] claims that he wants.  

Personally I do not know why you would expect that it would be just as easy to defeat a Dragon while using your Dads old sword that he made from a plow as it would while using Excalibur.   You could use the Pathfinder Unchained rules if you still want your bonuses without "using" magic.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Mar 22, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> The fact is that you do not need all of that stuff.  Sure you will not get a bonus to your saves because you dont have a magic cloak but that means you have to rely on your characters abilities to survive - just like [MENTION=6944960]Arakasius[/MENTION] claims that he wants.



You only need that stuff if you want to not die.

Saying that _I would prefer to survive by my own abilities_ could, perhaps, better be phrased by saying that _I would prefer if my own abilities were sufficient to allow me to survive_. Surviving through the use of magic items is still preferable to _not_ surviving, though, which is currently the only alternative under the PF1 ruleset.



Shasarak said:


> Golarion and the Forgotten Realms are not low magic settings though.



Golarion is not a low-magic setting under the PF1 ruleset, but it's possibly that it might be low_er_-magic under the PF2 ruleset, in much the same way that the magic level of the Forgotten Realms has fluctuated over time and editions.


----------



## Shasarak (Mar 23, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> You only need that stuff if you want to not die.




Characters fail their saves all the time without dying.  Every character has a built in poor save already so obviously you are expected to not make your save all the time.



> Saying that _I would prefer to survive by my own abilities_ could, perhaps, better be phrased by saying that _I would prefer if my own abilities were sufficient to allow me to survive_. Surviving through the use of magic items is still preferable to _not_ surviving, though, which is currently the only alternative under the PF1 ruleset.




I remember earlier editions of the game where you literally could not damage a creature unless you were using magic so although DnD has never been about Muggles vs Dragons, it is much easier to use the bent spoon you picked up at 1st level then it used to be.



> Golarion is not a low-magic setting under the PF1 ruleset, but it's possibly that it might be low_er_-magic under the PF2 ruleset, in much the same way that the magic level of the Forgotten Realms has fluctuated over time and editions.




There has never been a low magic Forgotten Realms.  Every Realms Shaking Event always replaced one sort of magic with another.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Mar 23, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> Characters fail their saves all the time without dying. Every character has a built in poor save already so obviously you are expected to not make your save all the time.



I'll tell you what. Let's both run the same level 15 fighter through a dungeon, except mine will have level-appropriate wealth and yours can have starting equipment, and we'll see who survives longer. If yours lasts anywhere close to as long as mine does, then I'll concede that magical items aren't absolutely mandatory in PF1.



Shasarak said:


> There has never been a low magic Forgotten Realms.  Every Realms Shaking Event always replaced one sort of magic with another.



That's really a matter of perspective. The Forgotten Realms of 5E is a vastly different place from the Forgotten Realms of 2E or 4E, and at least _one_ of those editions allows you to adventure successfully without relying on magic.


----------



## Charlaquin (Mar 23, 2018)

The fact is, PF1’s math makes it very difficult to run a low magic campaign in which the PCs can be expected to triumph over the monsters, particularly at higher levels. Sometimes that’s what you want in a low-magic setting. Sometimes you want a world where adventuring is an extremely dangerous prospect and you survive past 6th level only by a combination of excellent tactics and no small amount of luck. But sometimes you want to play in a world where ordinary people are capable of extraordinary things simply through enough perserverence and training. And that’s possible to pull off, but only with a lot of custom-designed monsters and/or rules hacks like Unchained progression. Some folks would like a system where that’s easier to orchestrate. Hopefully PF2 will be able to provide that, without taking away the ability to play a high magic campaign without having to do a similar amount of extra work. One way to do this would be by removing the numerical bonuses to saves, AC, and accuracy from magic items. Focus the magic items more on the abilities they grant than on statical boosts. Then DMs who want to hand out tons of magical trinkets can do so without putting their PCs way ahead of the expected number progression curve, DMs who only want to include a few extremely rare magical artifacts can do so without putting their PCs similarly behind the curve, and DMs who want their PCs to consistently be behind or ahead of the curve can do so with their encounter building, pitting them against monsters either too strong or too many for the players to be able to handle without flawless planning and lucky rolls. That seems to be the designers’ intent behind removing things like Rings of Protection from the game.


----------



## Arakasius (Mar 23, 2018)

It seems you haven’t played high level PF which is very much rocket tag. If you don’t want to die then you need the magical items otherwise your stats just don’t hold up. So yes against powerful save or suck spells that +3-5 saves actually is a huge difference. Same with attack bonuses. Same with stars. I could agree many clauses can get by without the AC boosters, but the other ones are pretty much mandatory. If you go without those items and don’t use unchaineds progression you’re at a much higher risk of death/tpk when running adventures.


----------



## Shasarak (Mar 23, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> I'll tell you what. Let's both run the same level 15 fighter through a dungeon, except mine will have level-appropriate wealth and yours can have starting equipment, and we'll see who survives longer. If yours lasts anywhere close to as long as mine does, then I'll concede that magical items aren't absolutely mandatory in PF1.




What are you even talking about?  Who ever said that some dude who wants to do it on his own merit is going to be as effective as someone who uses magical equipment?

That just sounds mental to me.



> That's really a matter of perspective. The Forgotten Realms of 5E is a vastly different place from the Forgotten Realms of 2E or 4E, and at least _one_ of those editions allows you to adventure successfully without relying on magic.




Sure man, you show me the Forgotten Realms adventure that does not have any magical items in it and I'll show you the edition that allows you to adventure without relying on magic.


----------



## Arakasius (Mar 23, 2018)

There is a difference between magical items making your character better (totally fair) and magical items being necessary to play. 5e has shown that it’s quite possible to play into high levels while doing this, something that PF1 fails at.


----------



## Shasarak (Mar 23, 2018)

Arakasius said:


> It seems you haven’t played high level PF which is very much rocket tag. If you don’t want to die then you need the magical items otherwise your stats just don’t hold up. So yes against powerful save or suck spells that +3-5 saves actually is a huge difference. Same with attack bonuses. Same with stars. I could agree many clauses can get by without the AC boosters, but the other ones are pretty much mandatory. If you go without those items and don’t use unchaineds progression you’re at a much higher risk of death/tpk when running adventures.




You are going up against a Dragon without any magical equipment, of course you have a much higher risk of death.  Even Beowulf used a magical sword to fight a Dragon and he is the guy that liked to rip Monster arms off with his bare hands.


----------



## Shasarak (Mar 23, 2018)

Arakasius said:


> There is a difference between magical items making your character better (totally fair) and magical items being necessary to play. 5e has shown that it’s quite possible to play into high levels while doing this, something that PF1 fails at.




Sure, if you like the type of game where 100 Villagers with slings are able to take down Dragons.


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 23, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> Sure, if you like the type of game where 100 Villagers with slings are able to take down Dragons.



Maybe not quite to this extent, but I for one very much prefer a game where the so-called weak can occasionally take out the so-called strong.

My go-to example for this is Eowyn (a middling-at-best Fighter) and Merry (a less-than-middling anything) taking down the in-theory invincible leader of the Ringwraiths.  This sort of thing is something the game has to allow for, and which d20-style games such as 3e and PF are notably poor at due to their too-steep power curve.

Another way to put it: "level appropriate" needs to cover a much broader range than d20 systems tend to support.


----------



## CubicsRube (Mar 23, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> Sure, if you like the type of game where 100 Villagers with slings are able to take down Dragons.




Yep. I do. If the villagers can overcome a dragons fear effect while they are being strafed with fire breath and being burned in massive lots and they don't run in terror,  then they've earned that bloody dragon!


----------



## Shasarak (Mar 23, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Maybe not quite to this extent, but I for one very much prefer a game where the so-called weak can occasionally take out the so-called strong.
> 
> My go-to example for this is Eowyn (a middling-at-best Fighter) and Merry (a less-than-middling anything) taking down the in-theory invincible leader of the Ringwraiths.  This sort of thing is something the game has to allow for, and which d20-style games such as 3e and PF are notably poor at due to their too-steep power curve.
> 
> Another way to put it: "level appropriate" needs to cover a much broader range than d20 systems tend to support.




I am not sure how tough Ringwraiths really are.  Aragorn seemed to be able to handle four of them alright and that was using a torch, not even his magic sword.  Immunity to men (but not to women or hobbits) seems like an obvious flaw in your defenses if you consider it for a moment.  I would be tempted just to use a normal Wraiths stats.


----------



## CubicsRube (Mar 23, 2018)

[MENTION=6779196]Charlaquin[/MENTION] i feel often granting a number bonus is a cheap way out of thinking up a magic item. Its a vestige from the early days but it doesnt invoke wonder.

Id much rather a sword that chants in a forgotten language when striking foes than a +1 sword. Even though it does nothing.

Now im thinking about a musical set of weapons and armor. Battleaxe would definately play metal when it hit


----------



## Aldarc (Mar 23, 2018)

CubicsRube said:


> [MENTION=6779196]Charlaquin[/MENTION] i feel often granting a number bonus is a cheap way out of thinking up a magic item. Its a vestige from the early days but it doesnt invoke wonder.
> 
> *Id much rather a sword that chants in a forgotten language when striking foes than a +1 sword. Even though it does nothing.*
> 
> Now im thinking about a musical set of weapons and armor. Battleaxe would definately play metal when it hit



A short sword or long dagger that glows when orcs are around is still regarded as one of the most iconic magic items in literature. I would also much rather see magic items of that nature.


----------

