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]​

 

[Ted Serious]

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

Worst except for all the others could imply just as bad.
Or unacceptable in other ways.

1e and 2e were just primitive.
5e tries too hard to be like them.
4e is not enough like them.

3.5 is still where D&D left off. Pathfinder is still carrying on from there.

 

[Turiann]

One thing I didn't like so much in D&D or Pfd, was that items were slotted. While that could have made sense for some slots, I found it annoying that could not carry 3, 4 or even 10 magical rings, if you wanted. Or why not a magical earrings, a magical tooth. Nope, didn't happen, those weren't even legitimate "slots".
On the other hand, this slot-based limit probably had the intention to avoid having characters severly overpowered by way of an arsenal of wearable, activatable items.
I found the RP idea not bad for solving the issue in a half way elegant manner. Now a 10th level character can wear and use 7 rings, a magical earring and any two other items of any kind, but not more (barring high Charisma).
You don't want to wear a cloak but want a resistance item, hell yes, now it's possible? Have a resistance ring. No need to pay extra.
You want to combine several effects in one item? No problem, no need to artificially create complex item-cost rules for combo-items, you won't trick your way to a higher number of effects because each requires a seperate RP, one way or the other.

I think this is a great rule, as far as the basic idea goes. And now we can hope that all of us come up with ways to ensure that this rule is not abused either.

The only thing I am not sure at this time, is whether an ability (Charisma) should influence the number of RPs a character gets. This will definitely give an advantage to classes such as bard, paladin, sorcerer, swashbuckler. Even if probably a small one.

I have thought about 2 options:
I would either remove the ability based RP-point adjustment all-together. That makes sure everyone is on the same base. That keeps things simple, simpler, and that is usually a good criterion to go by.

Alternatively, if you want to make ability choices count, I would do it in a way that yields the greatest equality, regardless of racial & class choices. I would tie the RP-modifier to the lowest stat a character has, whatever that stat is. That will make some people think twice about getting their usual 7 in the least useful ability score to get 4 freebee points somewhere else, which has become a very annoying standard boosting the class main stat. Rather than rewarding a character with more RP because he can make use of Charisma for his class, I prefer rewarding characters who decide to go for balanced abilities scores sets. Of course not all classes require as many high ability scores to operate fully, but usually those classes with more ability requirements have higher versatility.

For additional mechanics, I would used the "Extra" feat, similar to "Extra Rage/Ki/Grit/Channel" from 1st edition, to add an option for players wanting to build characters with RP-points.

 

[Kurviak]

One thing I didn't like so much in D&D or Pfd, was that items were slotted. While that could have made sense for some slots, I found it annoying that could not carry 3, 4 or even 10 magical rings, if you wanted. Or why not a magical earrings, a magical tooth. Nope, didn't happen, those weren't even legitimate "slots".
On the other hand, this slot-based limit probably had the intention to avoid having characters severly overpowered by way of an arsenal of wearable, activatable items.
I found the RP idea not bad for solving the issue in a half way elegant manner. Now a 10th level character can wear and use 7 rings, a magical earring and any two other items of any kind, but not more (barring high Charisma).
You don't want to wear a cloak but want a resistance item, hell yes, now it's possible? Have a resistance ring. No need to pay extra.
You want to combine several effects in one item? No problem, no need to artificially create complex item-cost rules for combo-items, you won't trick your way to a higher number of effects because each requires a seperate RP, one way or the other.

I think this is a great rule, as far as the basic idea goes. And now we can hope that all of us come up with ways to ensure that this rule is not abused either.

The only thing I am not sure at this time, is whether an ability (Charisma) should influence the number of RPs a character gets. This will definitely give an advantage to classes such as bard, paladin, sorcerer, swashbuckler. Even if probably a small one.

I have thought about 2 options:
I would either remove the ability based RP-point adjustment all-together. That makes sure everyone is on the same base. That keeps things simple, simpler, and that is usually a good criterion to go by.

Alternatively, if you want to make ability choices count, I would do it in a way that yields the greatest equality, regardless of racial & class choices. I would tie the RP-modifier to the lowest stat a character has, whatever that stat is. That will make some people think twice about getting their usual 7 in the least useful ability score to get 4 freebee points somewhere else, which has become a very annoying standard boosting the class main stat. Rather than rewarding a character with more RP because he can make use of Charisma for his class, I prefer rewarding characters who decide to go for balanced abilities scores sets. Of course not all classes require as many high ability scores to operate fully, but usually those classes with more ability requirements have higher versatility.

For additional mechanics, I would used the "Extra" feat, similar to "Extra Rage/Ki/Grit/Channel" from 1st edition, to add an option for players wanting to build characters with RP-points.

They want to be charisma based because they want the concept of characters specialized in using magic items.

About the dropping stats to get extra points, that is not possible in the playtest

 

[Sunseeker]

In other words, just like 4e wands!

Hmmmm....that could be one reason I liked 4E!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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

Exactly. I think 'worst period' is a fine description! 3e had a lot of ideas, but whomever it was who designed it did NOT sit down and think through, and realistically playtest, whatever those ideas entailed. Its a game of largely unintended consequences and thus rather 'artless' in terms of how it plays.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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 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.

Certain problems confront FRPG game designers (and maybe to different degrees other genres as well). The first is the need to keep giving out treasures, and for those treasures to increase in value as the game progresses. Otherwise there's really little meaning to character progression. This is then coupled with the 'dragon horde problem', which is basically that fantastical hordes of wealth, of preposterous size, are a part of the fantasy genre, and thus it must be possible for at least some sort of high powered PCs to acquire them.

The next problem is economics. Even the most ignorant game designer understands the basic concept of the value of money. No matter how precious or rare something is there is SOME price at which its owners will part with that thing. If not, then there is certainly some price at which some 3rd party will part the owners from said thing violently and sell it to you, which amounts to the same thing. Thus that character who has the dragon horde, he can get whatever he wants, pretty much. At least his money COULD get him most anything.

Because treasures in RPGs are generally fundamentally structured as rewards for play, any attempts to part PCs from said rewards is, in effect, dickish and unsporting. Thus, at least within the paradigms of play which D&D and its ilk generally work within, there simply is no general solution for the 'treasure problem', and if magic items exist, then the treasure problem is also a magic item problem.

Use rates, and simply making treasure 100% GM controlled and thus at least fantastically expensive, have been the standard solutions. They sort of work, but they always add some annoying subsystem to the game which is arbitrary and requires bookkeeping. Even 4e never REALLY solved this, and the attempts of its authors were in some ways quite embarrassing.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Worst except for all the others could imply just as bad.
Or unacceptable in other ways.

1e and 2e were just primitive.
5e tries too hard to be like them.
4e is not enough like them.

3.5 is still where D&D left off. Pathfinder is still carrying on from there.

I disagree that AD&D's solution is 'primitive'. I think it could be tweaked slightly but it did work quite well. Items had a 'sale value', but since it was impossible to make most items this was really a SALE value, which is basically quite high, but something like what a player might actually agree to part with an item for. Purchase of items is left more as an exercise, but in practice the sums quoted in the 1e DMG are large enough that the most likely scenario is barter, trading one item for another. Items are VERY difficult to make. This precludes magic item manufacture as either a business proposition, or as a way to achieving some huge stockpile of items.

Some things are notable:

Scrolls are not cheap, but PCs can pen spell scrolls at costs which make them worthwhile, and this is by far the most common type of item PCs produce.

Potions are also feasible. There's a high up front cost for a lab, but the most difficult aspect is ingredients. Still, there are scenarios where a PC might have access to one or a few specific ingredients in quantity sufficient to make the option feasible.

Non-permanent items are unfortunately ALL level-gated to 14th or higher level by the Enchant An Item spell (or similar restrictions on clerics). This could probably be fixed such that non-permanent items could be produced using a family of spells which gated on XP value or something like that. 3e DID try this, but they simply didn't set the values correctly here. Note also that in AD&D there is a big difference in that you can't simply endow ANY arbitrary spell into any arbitrary form of item. Components are of course the GM's mechanism for creating a restriction, which 3e also failed to adhere to (at least in practice).

Permanent items universally force the maker to sacrifice a point of CON (for wizards anyway, clerics are a bit fuzzier, but they don't get to make a wide variety of these items to start with). This is OK, except there's no reason why a level 14+ wizard would sac a CON point to make an item unless it was a VERY powerful item! In effect things like +1 daggers are never going to be produced at all. Again, some gating could be put in place, so your level 7 guy could make a +1 item. It would still be a bit painful, but at least the option would exist. There should also probably be some way to reacquire the CON point. 3e went for an XP sacrifice, but this was problematic, too low and at the same time disruptive of play.

I think AD&D had the right idea, they just should have level gated weaker items to allow them to be fashioned by somewhat lower level PCs, and maybe provided some guidelines to make it clear that these weaker items should have less ridiculously obscure components (especially in 2e where this was not at all made clear).

I'd also note that AD&D totally eschewed the concept of a 'range of levels' of an item. Every item in AD&D is unique and exists in only one form (there are a few exceptions though). This tends to mitigate the whole issue somewhat.

 

[Ted Serious]

In other words, just like 4e wands!

4e made spells into attacks. It made wands into magic weapons.

 

[Caliburn101]

Charisma bonus?<br>
<br>
So a bookish awkward and yet genius-savant Wizard cannot activate an arcane-based magical item as much as a charming Rogue of the same level?<br><br>Can you imagine the metagaming conversations everywhere as the high Charisma PC gets the best magic items purely because they are better at smalltalk with NPCs.<br>
<br>
Ugh - what rubbish - it should be level based alone, at low level especially this is going to be horrible where there is a real difference between one PCs Cha stat and another.

 

[MichaelSomething]

What do people want magic items to be??