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]​

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It was also filled with plenty of good ideas.

Every version of D&D has its flaws, and this was definitely one of 3rd edition's. So yes, they should discard things that didn't work, but they should also build further on what made it good.

Third edition removed all of the pointless saves from 2nd edition, and simplified it down to just three. Armor class was no longer negative, attack rolls were more straight forward (no more convoluted Thac0 system). So why are they coming up with ideas for PF2 that make it more convoluted? If healing wands are the issue, just remove them entirely.

I think it isn't REALLY just healing wands. As other people have pointed out, there's a whole issue with the price curve for items in general. I would solve the problem in a different way. Maybe, for example, making the effectiveness based on the level of the person USING the item. That would create a different problem, but it COULD be solved.

Another option is to simply abandon the notion of easy construction of items. I think its kinda clear 3e made that WAY WAY too easy. If the process for making stuff is inherently limited, requiring rare ingredients which simply cannot be purchased on the open market except perhaps in tiny quantities, making the process of creating items long and tedious, and perhaps requiring a significant up-front expense (IE a whole laboratory to make potions). These are actually all things 1e and 2e did. I feel like those editions were TOO parsimonious (particularly 2e, which was a bit ridiculous) but at the same time they had some good ideas that seem to have gone by the wayside.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I really wish "wands" worked more like you see in Harry Potter or other magical lore: they either enhance your casting (like a +1 weapon), or add special effects (Fire spells can harm ghosts, or something). Because you NEVER see in ANY of the source fantasy materials wands working like they do in D&D.

To add: I think it would also differentiate the Wizard more from the Sorcerer if they were required to use a wand (even a basic wooden stick).

In other words, just like 4e wands!

 

[Shasarak]

As far as I can tell, cheap healing wands were the one big issue.

If that is the case then maybe Paizo should try a more targeted treatment like not having wands of healing for example. It is a simple and elegant solution.

A lesser issue was that high-level characters could festoon themselves with dozens of low-level magic items, at virtually no cost to themselves (because of exponential wealth growth). Resonance is attempting to kill two birds with one stone, in a semi-organic way. An absolute limit on how many magic items you can use at once (or in a day) is relatively less silly than placing a level cap on items that would prevent high-level characters from using them.

Starfinder has a much better restriction where you can not buy items higher then your level but you can still use items higher then your level meaning that the DM can give them out as treasure. Gives your character incentive to go out adventuring to get that brand new high level item.

It's honestly not the worst idea in the world, especially if they could use it to also make tracking wand charges unnecessary. Wand charges added a lot of bookkeeping in 3E/PF1, and still do in 5E.

I must admit that I would be hardly thrilled if the best praise my idea gets is that it is "not the worst idea in the world".

I'm not quite following your exact numbers, but the reason you can't have a high-level potion that is as cost-efficient as a low-level potion is because of the action economy. High-level cure spells and high-level potions are action-balanced against other things that a high-level character can do, so letting a low-level character use a high-level item would be giving them an action that's over-powered compared to other actions they might take. If you have a drag-out back-and-forth fight that goes on for several rounds, and then someone drinks a potion that brings them back to full, then they just win.

High-level consumables need to be exponentially more expensive than low-level consumables in order to prevent low-level characters from buying them. Video games get around that problem by simply gating access to good shops behind story progression, but you can't always do that in tabletop. You're going to go to the big city, sometimes, and the big city should have the best shops with the best items. Price is the only reliable barrier available, in that situation.

It gets worse when there are high-level offensive items that you can use, but the designers were aware of that issue, which is why they capped potions at level 3 spell effects, and made high-level scrolls likely to fail when used by low-level characters.

The underlying issue is just one of pricing consumables relative to always-on items. Either consumables are too cheap, and you end up with bags full of them, or they're too expensive and you just ignore them (in favor of getting a better weapon). Most video games solve the issue by applying other limits. WoW limits you to using one potion per fight. The Tales series uses the same healing item at every level (Apple Gel, which restores 30% of your max HP), but limits you to carrying 15 at a time. Those limits are both pretty arbitrary, though, and I don't think they would translate well to tabletop.

I think that making high-level consumables exponentially more expensive than low-level consumables just ruins your whole game economy. You can take 4e as an example to the extreme that the designers had to go to introduce more and more expensive coinage just to keep up with the escalation. I know that game designers are not economics majors and on the other hand they could think through the logic of a 20th level character having to lug around a million gp just to buy a 20th level potion of healing.

 

[Shasarak]

Well, I gotta agree that the ROOT cause of the issue seems to be the existing of healing wands AT ALL. AD&D worked perfectly well without all this 'put any spell in a magic item' stuff. In fact it was close to impossible to make most items, unless the GM was very kind (especially in 2e). This worked perfectly fine for 20+ years until 3e had a 'better' idea, which apparently is now so sacrosanct that it has to keep borking up games for another 20 years. People, 3e was BROKEN, it was FILLED with bad ideas, lose them!

This reminds me of a quote from Winston Churchill which I will paraphrase:

"Many forms of DnD have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that 3e is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that 3e is the worst form of DnD except for all those other systems that have been tried from time to time."

 

[Charlaquin]

This reminds me of a quote from Winston Churchill which I will paraphrase:

"Many forms of DnD have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that 3e is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that 3e is the worst form of DnD except for all those other systems that have been tried from time to time."

That only works if you agree all those other systems that have been tried from time to time are indeed worse than 3e.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I must admit that I would be hardly thrilled if the best praise my idea gets is that it is "not the worst idea in the world".

It's a figure of speech. As far as potential solutions go, this one is somewhere between "serviceable, but awkward" and "functional". You could probably figure out a more elegant solution to these three problems, but it's not a trivial task.

I think that making high-level consumables exponentially more expensive than low-level consumables just ruins your whole game economy. You can take 4e as an example to the extreme that the designers had to go to introduce more and more expensive coinage just to keep up with the escalation. I know that game designers are not economics majors and on the other hand they could think through the logic of a 20th level character having to lug around a million gp just to buy a 20th level potion of healing.

I definitely recall carrying around hundreds of pounds of gold in order to commission a magic sword, as a mid-level character in Pathfinder. The system works mechanically, as long as you don't think about it, but I have honestly never seen a level-based system with an economy that makes sense. The two options are "magic swords are not for sale" and "that magic sword costs 65000gp". The price of a potion is only important in relation to what else you could be doing with that money.

 

[Shasarak]

That only works if you agree all those other systems that have been tried from time to time are indeed worse than 3e.

Sorry man, I just paraphrase the quotes, nothing I can do about people who disagree.

 

[Shasarak]

It's a figure of speech.

That is true. Not a particularly positive figure of speech.

As far as potential solutions go, this one is somewhere between "serviceable, but awkward" and "functional". You could probably figure out a more elegant solution to these three problems, but it's not a trivial task.

Is serviceable but awkward the bar you should be shooting for? We have a list of four goals that the designers say they want to achieve and Resonance meets just one of those four goals which puts in firmly in the "could be worse" category above all of the other solutions that meet none of the goals.

I definitely recall carrying around hundreds of pounds of gold in order to commission a magic sword, as a mid-level character in Pathfinder. The system works mechanically, as long as you don't think about it, but I have honestly never seen a level-based system with an economy that makes sense. The two options are "magic swords are not for sale" and "that magic sword costs 65000gp". The price of a potion is only important in relation to what else you could be doing with that money.

Exactly so is a potion that for example heals an extra 10% and costs 10x more worth buying in relation to anything else you could get with that money? Is healing an extra 100% worth it? If the cost benefit fails and then the only way you get people to buy them is by imposing some kind of magical item tax or another artificial gimmick then is that worth the distortion of the game?

 

[Charlaquin]

I definitely recall carrying around hundreds of pounds of gold in order to commission a magic sword, as a mid-level character in Pathfinder. The system works mechanically, as long as you don't think about it, but I have honestly never seen a level-based system with an economy that makes sense. The two options are "magic swords are not for sale" and "that magic sword costs 65000gp". The price of a potion is only important in relation to what else you could be doing with that money.

Honestly, option 2 works just fine as long as you’re not physically exchanging 65000 coins. Letters of credit are more likely what the kinds of people who are buying and selling magic swords are going to be trading with. Or if the setting doesn’t have a banking system developed enough to exchange credit, then at least high-value trade goods like ingots, gems, or works of art.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Exactly so is a potion that for example heals an extra 10% and costs 10x more worth buying in relation to anything else you could get with that money? Is healing an extra 100% worth it? If the cost benefit fails and then the only way you get people to buy them is by imposing some kind of magical item tax or another artificial gimmick then is that worth the distortion of the game?

It's hard to say which gimmicks are artificial, and which are a logical extension of a believable economy, especially when you're talking about how a magic item is supposed to work.

As far as I'm concerned, Resonance makes sense as an inherent limitation of magic items in a hyper-magical setting like Golarion (or Forgotten Realms, for that matter). Resonance, alone, would not distort the game to me. Sitting down to chug twenty potions after a fight would be a distortion. Just to get that out of the way.

My understanding of their approach to pricing consumables is that a single-use item should be roughly 2% the cost of a durable item of the same level. That is to say, they're supposed to be chump change, and the fighter isn't supposed to complain about spending 1000gp on a potion after they just spent 50,000gp on a new sword. Assuming that Resonance is working as intended, the fighter will have enough points left in a day that they can use the expensive potions to recover up to full before their next fight, but using the cheap potions would leave them dangerously low and there's no point in even carrying them. In that case, if that situation works out they way they plan it, then the price absolutely makes sense.

It seems like an awfully narrow gap for them to try and hit, though. I mean, I've always treated expendable items as unnecessary, because I can succeed perfectly fine without them; it just gives me slightly less room for error. When I'm comparing a potion that I don't really need, against a literal twenty pounds of gold which can feed a family for ten years, it's hard for me to think of that as chump change.

So what's the alternative, then? How do you price potions such that they don't wreck the HP-economy or the GP-economy, across a wide range of levels?