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

It's another day, and that means another round of Pathfinder 2nd Edition News! Today's menu includes more discussion on resonance, followed by the main course -- the new rules for death & dying! All added, as ever, to the Pathfinder 2nd Edition Compiled Info Page!

Photo by Paizo

​

• There are Pathfinder Playtest pro-order posters at the GAMA trade show. See above! And below...
• Gnome Stew reported on the Future of Pathfinder seminar at Gary Con. Mainly stuff we've heard before, but there are some new tidbits:
  • Shadow of the Demon Lord, white-box D&D, Magic: the Gathering, Tales from the Loop, and Star Trek Adventures were all referenced during development.
  • The item (shield) damage system has a name -- it's called "dented".
  • Some "signature gear" can level up with your character.
  • "Background will grant a specific Lore, which is similar to a specialized knowledge skill, such as Lore—Alcohol being granted to a character with barkeep as a background".
• 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."
  • Class features don't use Resonance -- "We avoided making class features that use Resonance Points unless they're directly tied to items. Resonance is a resource for items thematically and specifically. If you have abilities from a bloodline, you'll have to pay for those some other way..." (Bonner)
  • "...we've had some delightful occultist-based thought experiments based on some of these ideas as the "kings of resonance."[FONT=&amp] (Seifter)[/FONT]
  • 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."
• New Dying Rules! "RumpinRufus" reported on how they worked in the live streamed game at the GAMA trade show:
  • There are no negative hit points - if you take damage equal or greater than your HP, you go down to 0 HP and get the Dying 1 condition.
  • If a crit knocks you to 0, you gain Dying 2 instead of Dying 1.
  • Each round, you must make a save to stabilize. The save DC is based off the enemy - a boss may have a higher death DC than a mook, so you are more likely to be killed by bosses.
  • If you reach Dying 4, then you are dead.
  • If you make the stabilize check, you gain a hit point, but are still Dying. If you make another save at 1 HP, you are no longer Dying, and you regain consciousness.
  • If an ally heals you while you are Dying, you still have the Dying condition, even though you have positive HP. You still need to make a stabilize check to regain consciousness. But, once your HP is positive, you are no longer at danger of death from failing your checks - failing a stabilize check just means you stay unconscious.
  • The Stabilize cantrip puts you at 1 HP.
  • Mark Seifter further added -- "If you get well and truly annihilated by an attack, you die instantly. Even a 1st PC could probably insta-kill a kobold grandmother, even if the GM chose for full tracking of unconscious and dying NPCs."
• Erik Mona on monster books again, and how self-contained stat blocks will be -- "I don't think we've fully committed one way or the other yet. The playtest monster book is going to be mega stat block dump without a lot of description of what, say, a skeleton looks like or eats. As for special abilities and how they're formatted, while I know the design team has been hard at work on this stuff, I haven't interacted with it too much yet (I just finished going through magic items last night!)."
• Both Erik Mona and James Jacobs feel strongly about the presence of more outsider types on the summoning lists -- "No, actually, James Jacobs and I also feel very strongly about this. Very strongly."
• Logan Bonner comments on complexity, options, and the 'cognitive load' -- "We're keeping it in mind for sure. That's one reason we've rejiggered the number of bonus types, altered the action economy to make choice clearer, and (at least mostly) made it so you have options for static feats instead of only giving options to expand your list of actions. We'll see in the playtest whether that mix is right."
• Logan Bonner informs us that coffee and tea have been added to the Playtest Rulebook.
• Mark Seifter on how corruption could work "...gaining a corruption could unlock a new set of ancestry feats, as your fundamental nature has shifted."

Photo by Paizo
[FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Save[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Save[/FONT]​

 

[kenmarable]

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]

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]

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]

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]

[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]

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

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.