How Pathfinder 2's Resonance Reduces Wand-Spamming; & Comparisons to 5E Discussed

There's a fair amount to unpack in today's Pathfinder 2nd Edition news roundup! The big thing, I think, is where we find out what Resonance is and how it limits magic item use (and CLW wand-spamming); there's a ton more playtest demo media for you to watch or listen to, and some discussion from Paizo's Mark Seifter on Pathfinder 2nd Edition's differences to D&D 5E. All added, as always, to the now truly enormous Pathfinder 2nd Edition Compiled Info Page!


DYMu2h5UMAAgjzg.jpg

No new images to share today, so I'll re-use this preview of the gnome design sheet by Wayne Reynolds from yesterday



  • Jason Bulmahn and Game Trade Media live streamed a playtest demo of Pathfinder 2 last night. You can watch it on the Game Trade Media Facebook Page.
  • Erik Mona headed up a presentation at the GAMA trade show; I posted a few photographs here, courtesy of Paizo.
  • The Glass Cannon Podcast posted parts 2 & 3 of their playtest of the new rules, each about an hour long. There's some analysis here by Partizanski; I've summarised the juicy bits below:
    • Falling damage is 1 foot = 1 damage, and someone critically fumbled their reflex save, so they took double damage.
    • Starfinder non-lethal damage rules, only the last hit matters, no more separate tracking.
    • Thievery is a skill, a fumble caused the characters lock pick kit to be "dented",which gives an unspecified penalty.
    • Occultism is a skill, having to due with "strange runes or symbols"
    • Crits are no longer confirmed, there is a weapon property called deadly. It was on a short bow, and it mean that a crit did double damage +1d10. Rapier also has deadly.
    • Cantrip called "Forbidding Ward" that selects 1 enemy and 1 ally, giving the ally +1 to AC and "improved your saving throws against the target enemies attack spells and effects".
    • Knowledge (Religion) is still its own skill (not sure if that had been confirmed yet).
    • It appears that knowledge skills are now called lore instead.
    • Lore skills can be done untrained, it is up to the GM to decide if someone with out training would know a specific piece of lore/knowledge with no training.
    • Lore (underworld) which applies to "criminal elements, like thieves guilds, criminal syndicate or network"
    • The party was given a crystal vial labeled "Health" that healed 1d8 (no additional modifiers). That is similar to the healing serums of Starfinder
    • Condition called sick [x]. "Take -[x] on all checks and DC's, cannot willing ingest potions or anything else. Can spend action to attempt to recover to reduce by 1, or 2 on a critical success". Party could not try to recover until they exited the effect.
  • Resonance! -- from Partizanski's summary of the Glass Cannon Podcast above, this appears to be the way things like Wands of Cure Light Wound spamming are curbed:
    • "There is a concept called "Resonance Score", it is Level + CHA. Whenever you activate magic items or drink potions, you use up your resonance. Once it at 0, you have to start making checks to use items/drink potions. If you fail the check causing the use of the magic item to fail, and if you fumble it, you are cut of from magic items for the rest of the day. Potions no longer do anything. When you start the day, you do whats called "Investing", where you put on your magic items, and invest your resonance so they are good all day. Even if you are cut off, you keep your bonuses (I believe). If you find a magic items that have active effects, each use of that appears to use a resonance as well (example given was a sword that can shoot a ray of fire, each ray would cost one point of resonance). .The check after you resonance is done appears to be a "flat check", which means its a d20 with no modifiers. Starts at 10, goes up by one each time your "overspend". Again if you fumble you are cut off, which means you would need to roll a 1 on your second one to be cut off for the day."
    • Logan Bonner on Resonance -- "The way Resonance works came partially from the occultist because he defines the in-world concept of putting a piece of yourself into items to power them. As we do in many places, we’re expanding a PF1 concept by exploring its broader implications in our world. If we keep this system, the occultist would have new and more versatile ways to use his Resonance, just like a certain other class in the book!"
    • Mark Seifter on Resonance caps -- "Except for a particular time when my playtesters explicitly tried to see if they could get away with saving money on CLW wand spam despite being high level adventurers who could afford a better wand, and a few extreme stress test situations where I told them "This is the only fight today. Nova your heart out," my playtest group never really hit hard against the resonance caps, even the ones with lower Charisma."

  • Erik Mona on Ezra's age -- "Funny story. 10 years ago, when most of us were in our late 20s or early 30s, making old-man Ezren 42 didn't really ping anyone's radar. Whelp, I'm 42 now, and holy gods Ezren should have been older in first edition."
  • Erik on the scope of setting books -- "Lots of things to think about when it comes to treatments of Golarion in second edition, but for me, within the context of a single book, the main questions are "how wide is the focus" and "how deeply do we explore the topic. Right now, as in the case of the Dragon Empires book, the answer is usually REALLY WIDE, ALL-INCLUSIVE, REALLY and NOT PARTICULARLY DEEP. I am starting to think that might not be the best option in second edition... Yeah, to be totally honest I'm not really interested in publishing a book with four pages on each of the Inner Sea nations. I kinda feel like people have already bought that."
  • Erik has just finished editing the magic items chapter -- "I haven't decided much of anything yet, just musing aloud to myself before I go to bed after finishing my first edit on the Playtest Rulebook's magic item chapter. You know, as one does after hours at a con.... Would you believe it more if I told you I actually finished my edits on the flight over here (which btw I posted about on my twitter yesterday), and that what I did tonight was simply enter those edits into a Word file? Cause that's what happened. Took about three hours all told."
  • Erik Mona continues the recent discussion on the monster book(s) --
    • "The first monster book has got to be a basic reference, so there will be a lot of key monsters in the book for sure, no matter how long it ends up being. That said, I refuse to publish the same exact book, so we'll be adding a lot of stuff that isn't in the B1 book, moving a few weird choices to later books, etc. So it won't be exactly the same. This is honestly part of why I'm curious about a bigger book. With more pages, there can be even more "new" stuff."
    • Will monsters have subtypes, like goblin archers, bombers, etc.? "This one is currently an open question. Especially if the book is a bit bigger, I can see including more than one stat block for REALLY common characters, but I understand that some people hate this kind of thing. Speaking as a gamer and not as a publisher, I'm of two minds. I figure one reason people buy books is to have the publisher doing some of the work for them, so two pages with five different orc stat blocks that keeps me from having to crunch five different stat blocks? Sign me up. THAT SAID, monster creation is much easier to do "on the fly" in the new edition, so we're still working through the best choice on this front. Book length will probably play into this decision, ultimately."
    • Hags will be organised properly -- "I don't know if we'll end up fitting ALL of the hags in the first monster book, but we'll for sure alphabetize them properly when we do. This is one of our proudest editorial bugaboos with the current edition as far as monster organization is concerned, so it's a dead lock that we'll be addressing it in PF2."
  • Bonner on language clarification around unarmed attacks -- "I put a lot of time into unarmed attack language, and I’m hoping it’s close. We’re aiming to be more precise about not defining a thing that’s not a weapon as a weapon. (See also 1E natural “weapons” vs. unarmed strikes). Yet unarmed attacks need to live in some of the same categories for weapon groups, etc. Challenging!"
  • Mark Seifter says that PF2 is more accommodating of unusual race/class combos -- "Would you believe that it still manages to be drastically more forgiving than PF1 towards nonstandard ancestry/class combinations? We absolutely did not want to say "Alchemists and wizards who aren't humans or elves are always behind" or the like. You still might be behind a little bit if you pick an ancestry that traditionally has a penalty, but not nearly as much as a dwarf sorcerer in PF1 (which would have 4 less Cha than a human, halfling, or gnome who spent the same effort). It all comes down to the extra customization inherent in ancestry. If it seems like this might be impossible to achieve alongside the other features I mentioned to Daedalus, it wasn't easy. We worked really hard cracking this nut and had to reject many false starts before we found it."
  • Mark Seifter on 5E comparisons --
    • Comparison to D&D 5E's underlying math (this was actually from a few days ago) -- "The math we chose makes it much easier to tell stories where the PCs are oversized heroes critting left and right against weaker opponents or underdogs struggling against disaster against a powerful foe that requires serious teamwork to scratch, but the flatter proficiency from 5e would allow multiple weaker opponents to remain relevant threats for many more levels or greater foes to be defeated quite a few levels sooner by sufficiently tactical characters outnumbering them. Both can be awesome depending on which kind of story to tell! For instance, I remember when I was reading some fantasy novel where a ridiculous swordmaster was accosted by 8 brigands with swords all at once, and he thought to himself that no matter how good he was, the sheer numbers would make him likely to die here. That's honestly more realistic. But most of the books, TV shows, and movies I had seen before reading that book taught me that the high level swordmaster would annihilate eight basic brigands. This latter truth is very much the reality in the new game."
    • If you prefer the 5E style where multiple low level creatures are a threat to a high level character -- "I imagine that there would be a small series of mathematical steps that you could perform that wouldn't require any particularly challenging math-fu to get closer to that goal if you want to tell that story. The math juke could have some side effects, but I think it would work for what you want (depending on the level of the basic brigands and the swordmaster in the example)."
    • On how proficiencies work -- "...there are quite a few ranks of proficiency you can gain in a skill.... your proficiency modifier and ability modifier are not the only bonuses you can ever add to your skill. Is just proficiency+ability modifier with no other additions possible what 5e does? I actually don't know 5e solidly enough to be certain (I likely should learn 5e better, but with PF1, Starfinder, and PF2 rattling in my head, there's just too many games in there right now).... In that case, no, that's not what we're doing at all."
    • He talks about why people are connecting PF2 proficiencies with 5E proficiencies -- "I mean to be fair, proficiency is also a concept from Pathfinder, older editions of D&D, and a lot of other RPGs. I think people are reaching this connection because 5e is popular right now (and, from what I've seen of it so far, a cool and fascinating system designed by some really talented designers), and so it's in the zeitgeist. But that's not really what Pathfinder is, so we don't really have any interest in replicating that."
  • How to do Investigators and Warpriests with the playtest rules -- "Depending on what you're looking for from investigator, you might be able to pull it off just fine with the playtest book, honestly, choosing the right feats. It would work as a starter as you describe. But warpriest style is even easier than that, so it might be that warpriest is easy and investigator is medium, rather than saying investigator is super hard." (Seifter)
  • Seifter on ability score advancement -- "We are not using [the Starfinder] generation method. As Logan hinted in the blog itself, the stat generation is more organically tied to your character concept and helps you spread around your ability scores if you like. As it so happens, you also wind up with slightly higher overall starting stats, than in Starfinder mainly in your less important ability scores that you're fleshing out for RP purposes, though I'm considering using the PF2 statgen system the next time I run a Starfinder home game as it's more generous to multi-stat classes at low levels, like solarians."
  • On skill spreads of +/-20 between characters -- "...it seems like people are thinking that the system is so tightly designed that you can never get into such a skill spread. In fact, by level 20, it's possible for two characters designed to diverge dramatically to have a difference of somewhere around 17, before accounting for buff effects or circumstantial benefits like "+2 circumstance bonus to Intimidate giants," so you definitely can get into that 20 spread situation and we're not limiting the math in a way that everyone has to be close. But in that case, not only is the character that's ahead a paragon of that skill, the character who's behind is being really inattentive to that skill. By comparison, in PF1, it was pretty easy to have a +20 advantage, or even more, against your fellow PC who was actively trying to be good at that skill, maxing their ranks, etc." (Seifter)
  • Why keep ability scores and not just use the modifiers? "We support your decision to only use modifiers, the tradition of ability scores is too strong to remove them. It shouldn't be hard for you to just stick with modifiers though." (Seifter)
  • Why is a simple XP chart better than just story-based levelling? "Imagine a product that was basically a mega Kingmaker-style hex map full of cool secrets to find, enemies to fight, allies to make, resources to acquire, and more. Basically a giant sandbox. Suppose the sandbox had a few high level threats (the slumbering red wyrm under the mountain, etc) but was mostly in the mid-level range except for some lower level stuff around where the PCs start off, and the product even advises the GM what XP rate to use to match the content (you could also assume it was a GM homebrewing the sandbox campaign I describe instead). This allows the PCs freedom to explore at their pace in the order they choose while generally being at a good level to do so, while also providing something measurable for the PCs to use to gauge progress, since sandboxes can be much trickier to do story-based milestones than a more linear story game (to give one example of this, imagine you said "When the PCs discover the lich's castle, that's the milestone to hit level 10," and then they somehow stumble into it almost right away)." (Seifter)
  • On reasons to choose non-optimal armor -- "My paladin in one of the playtests was in splint mail and loving it!" (Seifter)
  • Using Acrobatics to move through an enemy space is vs. their reflex DC. "That Acrobatics use isn't trained only." (Seifter)
[FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT]
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Russ Morrissey

Russ Morrissey

CubicsRube

Hero
Supporter
I know this is an aside, but paizo staff repeatedly saying that they arent very familiar with 5e is a bad pr move. If i run a business i want my staff to be well aware of the biggest competitor.

Imagine in any other business hearing the innovation teams say "im not very familiar with our main competitors products. Between all our products, i dont have time to learn about any competitors products."
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Ancalagon

Dusty Dragon
Seems like Aragorn would at least be as good as Legolas and Gimli and both of them had 40+ kill counts in a single battle. I would say that's mostly not having to worry about fighting orcs.

that ... isn't quite right. They got 20 each, not 40 per. Second, legolas doesn't count because 19 of those kills were by bow vs melee foes at range (easy). Gimli never fought 8 vs 1, but rather a long series of small battle, in conditions that suited him. He's also better armored, and possibly has more HP.

I'm quite ok with 1 vs 8 being a big challenge.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
that ... isn't quite right. They got 20 each, not 40 per. Second, legolas doesn't count because 19 of those kills were by bow vs melee foes at range (easy). Gimli never fought 8 vs 1, but rather a long series of small battle, in conditions that suited him. He's also better armored, and possibly has more HP.
You’re correct as far as the books go. I think snickersnax was referring to the scene from the extended edition of the Two Towers film where Logolas boasts his final count being 42, and Gimli responds that his was 43.
 

Ancalagon

Dusty Dragon
I agree that resonance is kind of kludgey. I was thinking that it was an interesting way to define that magic works by working on your body and mind. But then that creates another problem - why are only magical items affected by resonance? Should spells not be affected too, particularly when one thinks about the logic behind giving resonance to wands and potions.

Of course, it would be interesting system where there were positive side effects to running out of resonance - like some kind of resistance to hostile magic as well. If your cells cannot process that extra "put me back together" magic then maybe they should also resist than "tear me apart" magic, at least a little bit.

I've been thinking about this too. It would be an interesting way to limit over-stacking of buffing spells...
 

Ancalagon

Dusty Dragon
I know this is an aside, but paizo staff repeatedly saying that they arent very familiar with 5e is a bad pr move. If i run a business i want my staff to be well aware of the biggest competitor.

Imagine in any other business hearing the innovation teams say "im not very familiar with our main competitors products. Between all our products, i dont have time to learn about any competitors products."

If part of your customer base really dislikes the competitor, and avoiding accusation of merely copying the other guy is important, then it makes sense in a way...
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
If part of your customer base really dislikes the competitor, and avoiding accusation of merely copying the other guy is important, then it makes sense in a way...

Kind of, but in that same way it would make more sense to say "we're aware of what the competitor is doing, and here are specific ways that what we're doing differs from what they're doing." Really, there are only two reasons to say "we don't know what our competitors are doing" rather than "we're intentionally doing something different than our competitors." Either you're actually copying what your competitor is doing and want plausible deniability that you just didn't realize they were doing the same thing you independently came up with, or you genuinely don't know what they're doing. Neither really looks very good from a PR perspective. But in this case I'm pretty sure Paizo is doing the latter. Intentionally copying 5e just wouldn't make any sense given that a significant portion of their audience is playing their game specifically because it's not 5e.
 

Igwilly

First Post
If part of your customer base really dislikes the competitor, and avoiding accusation of merely copying the other guy is important, then it makes sense in a way...
Some/many people are already saying that they're copying 5e. That's to reinforce the opposite.

Quite frankly, they seem to be very different for me. Pathfinder 2e will also have the Vancian system ^^
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
Quite frankly, they seem to be very different for me.

That they do. Frankly, I think a lot of the complaints that they’re “copying 5e” are simply misplaced worry that the things people like about PF1 are going to change. Lots of folks love the granularity of PF1’s skill rank system. When those people hear “unified proficiency system,” they worry that the granularity they love will be lost. 5e has a unified proficiency system, and it has almost no granularity at all - just a binary “proficient” or “untrained,” with a few classes granting double-proficiency and half-proficiency.. It represents the logical extreme of what people are afraid might happen if PF2 changes the Skill system they love, so they point to 5e as the example of their fear. They say “this is the opposite of what I want PF2 to look like!” And the more people use 5e as an example of the direction they fear PF2 headed in, the more plausible it sounds to a panicked mind that PF2 is going to look like 5e with a coat of Wayne Reynolds paint. “They said there were going to be three actions! 5e has three actions if you count moving as an action even though 5e doesn’t ! See, they’re totally just ripping off 5e!”

Anxiety and confirmation bias are a potent combination.
 

I could see Resonance working for non-casters, but it would be nice if they give casters an advantage by either replacing the roll with their arcane lore check or receiving class bonus that allows them extra uses. There could also be a feat that increases the usage per day. Outside of the tracking issue, I like that they are trying to fix the problem. I think, as mentioned before, if they focus on fixing the problems that tend to lead to Christmas tree style of playing they would eliminate the need for it.

I'm not seeing how this eliminates the walking magic emporium issues of 3.x/pf. With Resonance, you have a reason to carry around dozens of spare magic items just in case. Sure, don't need that ring of frost resistance in the desert, so don't power it this morning. But do power the ring of fire resistance. Oh, and green dragon in these parts? better charge the ring of acid resistance. It's not like using Resonance can take a lot of time since you need it to activate a wand. At least with 5E's attunement, swapping magic items requires a short rest.
 

snickersnax

Explorer
that ... isn't quite right. They got 20 each, not 40 per. Second, legolas doesn't count because 19 of those kills were by bow vs melee foes at range (easy). Gimli never fought 8 vs 1, but rather a long series of small battle, in conditions that suited him. He's also better armored, and possibly has more HP.

I'm quite ok with 1 vs 8 being a big challenge.

My copy of tLotR book says this...in chapter VIII Road to Isengard

'Forty-two, Master Legolas!' he cried. 'Alas! my axe is notched: the forty-second had an iron collar on his neck. How is it with you?'

'You have passed my score by one,' answered Legolas.

So yeah 40+ each

Also at the death of Boromir, which was a one vs many battle.

His [Boromir's] glance strayed to his fallen enemies; Twenty at least lay there.


Anyway it's fine if you want your math to have 1 vs 8 be near max capacity for a solo character, but the trade off with no good solutions that I have seen yet, is that BBEGs will struggle in solo fights against a party of 4-6, and solitary monsters will not have a good ecology with adventurers.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

snickersnax

Explorer
You’re correct as far as the books go. I think snickersnax was referring to the scene from the extended edition of the Two Towers film where Logolas boasts his final count being 42, and Gimli responds that his was 43.

TBH, I originally just looked this up online. There seemed to be a debate about whether it was 42/41 or 43/42, so I figured I would just be safe with 40+.

But since its become an issue I looked it up in the books and its Gimli 42 and Legolas 41.
 

Ancalagon

Dusty Dragon
My copy of tLotR book says this...in chapter VIII Road to Isengard

'Forty-two, Master Legolas!' he cried. 'Alas! my axe is notched: the forty-second had an iron collar on his neck. How is it with you?'

'You have passed my score by one,' answered Legolas.

So yeah 40+ each

Also at the death of Boromir, which was a one vs many battle.

His [Boromir's] glance strayed to his fallen enemies; Twenty at least lay there.


Anyway it's fine if you want your math to have 1 vs 8 be near max capacity for a solo character, but the trade off with no good solutions that I have seen yet, is that BBEGs will struggle in solo fights against a party of 4-6, and solitary monsters will not have a good ecology with adventurers.

2 things:

1: clearly I miss-remembered the count. I apologize for the error.

2: Considering the 1 vs many and BBEGs thing, this is a very valid concern. The solution is to have those solo big monsters have different "rules" than ordinary mortals, such as more actions, a lot more HP etc... but that is difficult to do well .
 


snickersnax

Explorer
If you think about it Boromir's 20+ is actually FAR more impressive than Legolas or Gimli - he was ALONE.

History and literature are full of these kinds of heroic moments.

Cyrano de Bergerac vs. 100 attackers

Miyamoto Musashi attacking dozens of archers and swordsman of the Yoshioka clan. He later explains that if you can fight four you can fight any number.

and this 3 vs 50 fencing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgKg0Hc7YIA
 




I'd really like it if the designers of PF2 didn't feel so compelled to hold onto old DnD-isms and i hope they ditch what doesn't benefit the system. Ability modifiers only instead of scores + modifier seems like a no-brainer, for example. Also, the obvious solution to wand spam is to make wands special instead of disposable cameras that hold spells. I can think of a few ways to address magic item spam:

- Attunement. You could go even farther than 5e and say that EVERY item needs attunement to work. You can pick a sword, a cloak, and the magic wand, but that's your limit of three, for example. In this system, you could do like 5e and make the wand a limited number of uses per day, so you don't have the ability to spam and you don't have the ability to use a horde of magic wands. The drawback is that this doesn't address potions. If you wanted to make it stand out from 5e, you can make the number of attunements vary based on CHA (or feats, or whatever) and obviously rename it.

- Healing Surges. They're never going to go this route because it's so 4e but healing surges neatly addressed the issue of wand and potion spam. Every character has a limit to the number of times they can be healed each day without using a daily spell slot. Straigthforward, easy, but pisses off a certain segment of gamers.

- Get rid of wands and potions that are just receptacles for class abilities. Seriously. Its actually pretty simple. Instead of disposable cameras, wands that heal are powerful, expensive and limited. Potions too, but to a lesser extent. No spam because default availability is rare and there is none of that bookkeeping with 3445.5 charges between PCs nonsense.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
I'd really like it if the designers of PF2 didn't feel so compelled to hold onto old DnD-isms and i hope they ditch what doesn't benefit the system. Ability modifiers only instead of scores + modifier seems like a no-brainer, for example. Also, the obvious solution to wand spam is to make wands special instead of disposable cameras that hold spells.
In 3e wands could only replicate spells; maybe make it in PF2 that the one thing a wand won't do is replicate a spell - though, sadly, that would mean the end of wands of lightning and suchlike. Make wand effects unique to wands.

As for your point about stats and modifiers, I'd rather see them go the other way - make the 3-18 stat more relevant and reduce the emphasis on the modifier.

I can think of a few ways to address magic item spam:

- Attunement. You could go even farther than 5e and say that EVERY item needs attunement to work. You can pick a sword, a cloak, and the magic wand, but that's your limit of three, for example. In this system, you could do like 5e and make the wand a limited number of uses per day, so you don't have the ability to spam and you don't have the ability to use a horde of magic wands. The drawback is that this doesn't address potions. If you wanted to make it stand out from 5e, you can make the number of attunements vary based on CHA (or feats, or whatever) and obviously rename it.
On the assumption that most PCs will end up with a bunch of items over time, this threatens to run into the same headache pre-memorized spells has: you're hosed if you chose the wrong one this morning for the job this afternoon. Don't like it, sorry.

Healing Surges. They're never going to go this route because it's so 4e but healing surges neatly addressed the issue of wand and potion spam. Every character has a limit to the number of times they can be healed each day without using a daily spell slot. Straigthforward, easy, but pisses off a certain segment of gamers.
Easier to just make non-spell healing magic much, much less common.

But then people will complain the party always has to have a healer in it...you just can't win. :)

Get rid of wands and potions that are just receptacles for class abilities. Seriously. Its actually pretty simple. Instead of disposable cameras, wands that heal are powerful, expensive and limited. Potions too, but to a lesser extent. No spam because default availability is rare and there is none of that bookkeeping with 3445.5 charges between PCs nonsense.
I don't mind there being a reasonable number of potions around, because if nothing else you're limited by how many you can carry. That, and if potion containers are ruled to be fragile, and-or potions are easy to dispel - yeah, no worries there.

Also, were you to go this route you'd by the same rationale also have to get rid of spell scrolls; and I'm not sure anyone wants that.

Lanefan
 

In 3e wands could only replicate spells; maybe make it in PF2 that the one thing a wand won't do is replicate a spell - though, sadly, that would mean the end of wands of lightning and suchlike. Make wand effects unique to wands.

This is really what i'd like. Make wands cool and fun toys instead of giving you more of what you have on your spell list or checking off blanks on that list. If you miss lightning bolt wands, make an awesome lightning wand that has a few lightning effects.

On the assumption that most PCs will end up with a bunch of items over time, this threatens to run into the same headache pre-memorized spells has: you're hosed if you chose the wrong one this morning for the job this afternoon. Don't like it, sorry.

I guess if characters really depend on the old 3e christmas tree or else they're screwed, maybe this version won't be for me. 3e and 4e gave me enough of that playstyle for a lifetime.

I don't mind there being a reasonable number of potions around, because if nothing else you're limited by how many you can carry. That, and if potion containers are ruled to be fragile, and-or potions are easy to dispel - yeah, no worries there.

Balancing a mechanical issue with something that's trivial to negate with roleplay (we put all of our potions in metal flasks) doesn't seem like a an ideal solution, to me. I'd rather magic items have straightforward checks and balances like spell slots do or the number off attacks you can perform in 6 seconds.

Also, were you to go this route you'd by the same rationale also have to get rid of spell scrolls; and I'm not sure anyone wants that.

I've been playing 5e and never seen them, so honestly, i had totally forgot that they existed. I wouldn't mind if we burned all of the old spell scrolls and replaced them with special incantation-type ritual spells that take 5 or more minutes to perform and do big, unique stuff.
 

Visit Our Sponsor

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top