Resonance, Potency, & Potions: A Look At Magic Items in Pathfinder 2

Paizo has been delving into the way magic items work in its latest previews of Pathfinder 2nd Edition. Last week they spoke about Resonance, a resource that characters have for activating magical items; and on Friday they blogged about Potency, which is linked to the power of a magical weapon.

​

Resonance is measured in Resonance Points (RP). Activating an item costs 1 RP, and your RP total is your level plus your Charisma modifier. Paizo points out that "We expect Resonance Points to be a contentious topic, and we're really curious to see how it plays at your tables. It's one of the more experimental changes to the game, and the playtest process gives us a chance to see it in the wild before committing to it."

They also preview a few magic items - cloak of elvenkind, floating shield, staff of healing, and some trinkets such as a fear gem, and vanishing coin.

When it comes to weapons, Resonance is not required; weapons have a "potency" value, which is roughly equivalent to its "plus" -- it gives you a bonus to attack, increases damage by a whole damage die per potency point (i.e. a +1 longsword gives +1 to hit and +1d8 damage). Potency and special qualities are limited by a weapon's quality - standard, expert, master, legendary.

Quality	Max Potency	Max Properties
Standard	+0	0
Expert	+2	1
Master	+4	2
Legendary	+5	3

Potency and properties are contained within transferrable magical runes, often found on a runestone. Some examples shown are disrupting, and vorpal.

Amor similarly has potency and properties. Potency affects AC, TAC, and saving throws. Some properties include invisibility and fortification.

This takes us on to potions. Potions can now have high level effects, and they don't have to be tied to the spell lists. Examples including healing potions, invisibility potions, dragon's breath potions, and oil of mending.​

[FONT=&quot]Save[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Save[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Save[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Save[/FONT]​

 

[Shasarak]

When I played AD&D, we didn't play in high magic settings where you were likely to find those kinds of items. Magic items were rare, and powerful. (The AD&D experience was also expected to vary widely between tables, of course.)

Cure Light Wounds, in wand form, is an exploit because it trivializes all of the other healing mechanics. Hit Points are supposed to be a finite resource which you conserve and manage over time, and any class features which you can devote to countering that is supposed to be a meaningful choice. The wand changes that into a trivial GP cost, which restores you to full HP between every encounter. The game is more far more interesting if that wand doesn't exist, just as it was not available in earlier editions.

Eh, it is really not an exploit to be able to heal.

The only real difference between being able to heal easily and not is how long you can spend adventuring before retreating back to a safe area to heal. So really it is just a choice to either spend money or spend time.

Or is camping for a few days to heal considered an exploit as well?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Or is camping for a few days to heal considered an exploit as well?

It is widely considered to break the game, yes. Look up "five-minute workday" and "quadratic wizard" for the full details.

 

[Shasarak]

It is widely considered to break the game, yes. Look up "five-minute workday" and "quadratic wizard" for the full details.

The game does not break because the party is at full hp.

But it does bring up an interesting question. In your party if you can not use wands to heal and you can not go away to heal then do you just keep going until either death or victory?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The game does not break because the party is at full hp.

The game doesn't become unplayable, but it is fundamentally changed. The resource management game breaks, as play shifts toward overcoming individual encounters.

It's just a matter of preference. Even 4E had its fans.

But it does bring up an interesting question. In your party if you can not use wands to heal and you can not go away to heal then do you just keep going until either death or victory?

You either play the resource game and learn to manage your resources more efficiently - avoid unnecessary combat, fight conservatively, etc - or you give up. If you get halfway through the dungeon, then you can usually leave to heal, but doing so means that you fail - the loot gets plundered before you can get there, the bad guy gets away, or whatever other goal you had becomes unreachable. (Usually the second one.)

Pathfinder doesn't automatically assume that you'll be at full HP before every fight, the way that 4E does. It assumes that you'll get worn down over the course of the day, which is why the encounter guidelines are so generous. One side effect of the wand is that players can breeze through at-level encounters, and the GM is forced to bring out higher-level enemies in order to challenge them. If you don't have easy healing, and the party isn't at full HP for every fight, then you can have a whole dungeon full of lower-level enemies that still challenge a higher-level party.

 

[Shasarak]

The game doesn't become unplayable, but it is fundamentally changed. The resource management game breaks, as play shifts toward overcoming individual encounters.

It's just a matter of preference. Even 4E had its fans.

I would break it down to a difference between Combat as War or Combat as Sport.

You either play the resource game and learn to manage your resources more efficiently - avoid unnecessary combat, fight conservatively, etc - or you give up. If you get halfway through the dungeon, then you can usually leave to heal, but doing so means that you fail - the loot gets plundered before you can get there, the bad guy gets away, or whatever other goal you had becomes unreachable. (Usually the second one.)

Personally I have no problem with failing a mission and living to fight again another day. There are plenty of Princesses to rescue, Orcs to kill and Gold to loot for another day.

Pathfinder doesn't automatically assume that you'll be at full HP before every fight, the way that 4E does. It assumes that you'll get worn down over the course of the day, which is why the encounter guidelines are so generous. One side effect of the wand is that players can breeze through at-level encounters, and the GM is forced to bring out higher-level enemies in order to challenge them. If you don't have easy healing, and the party isn't at full HP for every fight, then you can have a whole dungeon full of lower-level enemies that still challenge a higher-level party.

I dont see that Pathfinder is based around using low level enemies, that seems more like a 5e design standard to me.

It does not seem like it makes much difference in your scenario between the Party failing to complete a Dungeon (and the DM having to reduce the difficulty of his encounters and the Party stomping the Dungeon (and the DM having to increase the difficulty of his encounters). In either case the DM has to change his encounters based on feedback from the game which seems like a pretty normal thing for the DM to do. It seems like a pretty dumb DM who can not work out that his encounters are too tough for the Players (or vice versa).

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I would break it down to a difference between Combat as War or Combat as Sport.

That is entirely fair.

Personally I have no problem with failing a mission and living to fight again another day. There are plenty of Princesses to rescue, Orcs to kill and Gold to loot for another day.

It is possible that failure means the end of the world. If you're playing a hero, and a princess dies because you failed, then the guilt might make you wish you were dead. You're not necessarily just plundering some tomb because you're bored.

I dont see that Pathfinder is based around using low level enemies, that seems more like a 5e design standard to me.

Fifth Edition is (nominally) based on the idea that a high-level party can fight low-level enemies, even if they're ten levels lower than you, and it should still be interesting. Pathfinder was (theoretically) based around a party encountering enemies within a few levels above or below their own; if you face a level-2 encounter, then it might still do some significant damage to you, and you'll need to spend valuable resources to recover from that (if you aren't careful).

In practice, if the Pathfinder GM contrives for the party to be challenged, then they need to constantly face encounters that are at least a few levels above their own. There's no sense in throwing a level-2 encounter at them, because it will still take a while to resolve, and any damage will be healed right away. You don't really have attrition, when you have access to easy healing.

 

[Shasarak]

It is possible that failure means the end of the world. If you're playing a hero, and a princess dies because you failed, then the guilt might make you wish you were dead. You're not necessarily just plundering some tomb because you're bored.

I am pretty sure that you would have figured out if it was an "end of the world" mission or not. Or is it Goblins are attacking Sandpoint, if we dont stop them it will be the "end of the world" situation?

Besides I am just playing my character, he is no Hero just an adventurer looking to make a sweet score.

Fifth Edition is (nominally) based on the idea that a high-level party can fight low-level enemies, even if they're ten levels lower than you, and it should still be interesting. Pathfinder was (theoretically) based around a party encountering enemies within a few levels above or below their own; if you face a level-2 encounter, then it might still do some significant damage to you, and you'll need to spend valuable resources to recover from that (if you aren't careful).

In practice, if the Pathfinder GM contrives for the party to be challenged, then they need to constantly face encounters that are at least a few levels above their own. There's no sense in throwing a level-2 encounter at them, because it will still take a while to resolve, and any damage will be healed right away. You don't really have attrition, when you have access to easy healing.

You still get attrition with your equipment and spells etc. Besides maybe you dont want to play an attrition based game when you can just stomp some fools, high five and level up. Having different forms of healing allows you to play the game you want and also does not require Jim to play the Healer which sounds like a win-win.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

You still get attrition with your equipment and spells etc. Besides maybe you dont want to play an attrition based game when you can just stomp some fools, high five and level up. Having different forms of healing allows you to play the game you want and also does not require Jim to play the Healer which sounds like a win-win.

Is your position that PF2 shouldn't include Resonance as a feature, because Resonance means someone has to play a healer, and that would be boring?

 

[Shasarak]

Is your position that PF2 shouldn't include Resonance as a feature, because Resonance means someone has to play a healer, and that would be boring?

No, my position is that Resonance: 1) does not meet the goals set out by the designers and b) is an arbitrary meta-gamist construct that does not map to any type of fiction (including all DnD and Pathfinder fiction).

It is like how you can only "attune" three items in 5e except that many items dont even need attunement.

Myt impression is that it is solving a problem that no one has. I mean has anyone really come out and said "Man I wish that I could only use my Vorpal sword a few times a day because it just seems overpowered?" or "Hey I have used my Ring of Invisibility quite often today so logically my Healing Potion should have stopped working".

 

[mellored]

No, my position is that Resonance: 1) does not meet the goals set out by the designers

I'm not sure what goals they had, but I don't mind resonance. It's 1 number to keep track of, rather than 20 different wand and item charges, let's a DM give out a few or many items without affecting overall power much, and helps reduce low level wand spam. (Though you can still spam all your ressonance on a single item.)

What I do mind is having both resonance AND items that have charges. Pick one or the other.

b) is an arbitrary meta-gamist construct that does not map to any type of fiction (including all DnD and Pathfinder fiction).

I don't see who this is any more meta-gamist than any of the other x/day things. Which are ubiquitous is D&D and PF.

"Magic item's draw their power from the user.". Easy.


That said, I wouldn't mind if items and spell points were the same pool. That way it's more about adding versatility rather than extra power.