Mark confirmed that wands have 50 charges and they take 1 resonance use in the Playtest Reveals from the Crypt of the Everflame with GCP Finale!! thread.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2v6zz&page=1?Playtest-Reveals-from-the-Cryp t-of-the
In other news, he also confirmed that anything that was an x uses/day item is now just a straight resonance cost. I think we already knew this, but good to get it spelled out. Also, that scrolls and other consumables use up the consumable and cost 1 resonance.
I think most people are fairly happy with the consumable aspect (price structure aside), but the wand reveal was met with some dismay. There had been a lot of people that had assumed that charged items were a thing of the past. I would be quite happy to see the end of them as well.
Every right thinking person would agree that being able to obtain a wand with a spell appropriate for your level (level 4 spell, at character level 7, for example) and costing only 1 resonance to cast would be game breaking. Even if you had 50 charges of it, given how few spells you get now, would be very strong.
So, I think it would be worthwhile to discuss any ideas that would remove charges from wands, yet still keep them balanced with prepared spells. Also, I would also like to add that I am a fan of resonance for magical items worn, consumables used and activating magic items, but it needs play testing and maybe refinement.
OPTION 1
Cost and wealth by level (WBL) is the first thing that comes to mind. In PFe1 such a wand (4th level) would be 90% of your total WBL (23,500gp @ 7), very unlikely that you would not have access to it. If WBL scales in a similar way to PFe1, then it almost doubles every 2 levels, which means that at level 9, you could spend half our resources and get a level 4 wand. That seems too good.
Balance through cost alone seems difficult. There would be a very fine line between so expensive that they are no obtainable, not very useless because they are too low level, or too good because they are potent and spamable.
OPTION 2
Part cost, but also increased resonance spend. So, one idea I had was maybe wands could be moderately expensive, say investing 25-40% of your silver (similar amounts that martial will spend on their primary weapon) for a wand with a spell that is 1 level behind your top level spells. However, it cost 3 points of resonance to cast from. This means using a wand is a big dump of resonance, but it is a fairly powerful spell. This means you cannot spam it, but you might use it 2 or 3 times a day, and that use should feel powerful and useful. This definitely makes spending resonance an interesting decision. Do I want more magic items, do I want more standard consumables, or do I want to run lean on those and really have a few wand charges to throw around?
Additionally, so that lower wands are more useful, there should be a resonance discount for low level wands. Maybe if it is 3 levels below your max it is 2 resonance, in if it is 5 levels below it is just 1.
I think I like this option better.
BUT I WANT TO THROW CASH AT MONSTERS NOT REASONANCE
So, I have thought of an addition option that helps move away from charged items, but still allows power through consumable items. Maybe there can be a bulk crafting discount for making 10 identical scrolls in one batch. Perhaps a 20% discount. That way, there are not charged items exactly, but scrolls pick up the slack as spamable a consumable. It is kind of a halfway house. Maybe.
STAVES
I really hope staves (staffs?) are not spells on a stick, but rather the caster equivalent of magic weapons. +1 to hit with spells, +1 DCs. Since +1 armour increases saves and TAC (I think?), shouldn't there be an items that allows casters to keep up?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mark confirmed that wands have 50 charges and they take 1 resonance use in the Playtest Reveals from the Crypt of the Everflame with GCP Finale!! thread.
So, instead of rebalancing wands to not bother with charges to mainstream the amount of stuff players need to keep track of (there will come a time where they will outscale wands via Resonance), they decide to keep charges, and instead tack a resonance counter for usage of all magic items, and now effectively require two separate resources to use such an item?
I can assure you that there will be multiple tables that will end up having to "retcon actions" simply because they will have trouble keeping track of two resources (Resonance more often than not) to determine whether they can use a given item or not, which is problematic in gameplay and keeping the game flowing. It happens when there is only one resource to keep track of as it is, adding more will just make wand usage more of a hassle than it was in PF1, which is a bad thing.
"What's that, you wanted to use a Wand of Magic Missiles to interrupt the bad guy casting his spell, but you don't have any more Resonance? Better luck next time, buddy." (Yes, there is the whole "Roll a D20 and it might still work" rule, but that will more often than not result in retconning actions due to it being a flat roll that gets harder every time you try, and most players don't want to risk not ever benefitting from magic items for the rest of the day unless it's life-or-death.)
It's tedious. I'd really rather they spent the time to rebalance wands to include Resonance instead of just copy-pasting their PF1 rules and expecting people to keep track of multiple resources for a given item, especially when the entire point of the new edition is to streamline the math and cut down on the bonuses, penalties, and so on. (Yes, the math problems will still exist, but it should be less than before, not more, as is the case here.)
Sounds like something that needs serious attention during the playtest.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Resonance PLUS charges is not a good design idea, in my mind; we're ADDING complexity to solve a problem? Needs to be either/or. I do like D&D5's method of making a random roll to check if a wand is destroyed after x uses; perhaps something like "if you have used resonance to activate the wand today, roll a d20; on a 1, the wand is destroyed."
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yesterday, I was messaging my daughter and told her that the Paizo forum thread, Why are Wands of CLW such a problem had drifted to discussing Keynesian econmomics of selling wands. She replied, "I've never personally cared for using consumables in TRPGs. Too much to keep track of."
My daughter learned to play tabletop roleplaying games 24 years ago, and has skills from all her years of playing. And her opinion is that the bookkeeping on scrolls, potions, and wands is too much trouble.
Combining resonance and charges will cause many other people to share her opinion.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not a big fan of this either.
The benefit most players receive from Resonance conceptually is a decrease in complexity. That's a very good goal, and one I'm pleased to see being worked toward...but 50 charge Wands plus Resonance makes Resonance a net increase in complexity IME.
See, Wands are by far the most complex thing to keep track of charges/uses in regards to, and adding Resonance on top of that makes it worse for Wands...and Wands are also pretty common. Sure, Resonance reduces complexity elsewhere, but that still comes out as a net of somewhat more complex than it used to be rather than the lesser complexity we hoped for, and which Resonance allows for if you ditch Wands that have charges.
Is there a mechanical place for a 50 charge consumable? I guess there can be, but they're way too fiddly to be fun to work with, especially if there's another limiting factor available.
Another possibility would be to treat Wands as a 'worn' item rather than a consumable for Resonance purposes, having them cost 1 Resonance per day to attune rather than one per usage. That'd give them a legitimate advantage over other consumables, and more importantly make bookkeeping simpler. Another option is to reduce number of charges a Wand starts with to, say, 10 (while likewise reducing price). That's a small enough number that you can work with and keep track of it more easily and with less bookkeeping (you just erase the Wand after a while). Combining these two would be a definite complexity reducer without making Wands unlimited use.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mark confirmed that wands have 50 charges and they take 1 resonance use in the Playtest Reveals from the Crypt of the Everflame with GCP Finale!! thread.
I did not confirm this in that thread.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mark confirmed that wands have 50 charges and they take 1 resonance use in the Playtest Reveals from the Crypt of the Everflame with GCP Finale!! thread.I did not confirm this in that thread.
Indeed. Looking at his posts all he said was that they had charges and cost Resonance per use (like other consumables).
No mention of 50 charges at all. Which actually makes me hopeful for the 10 charge thing I suggested above. That'd be a lot simpler logistically.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Probably more complex, but I'd also be happy with something like: wands have N charges (likely ~2-4), which don't cost resonance, recharge daily. You can spend resonance to use an 'empty' wand, but if you fail the resonance check, the wand is destroyed.
Thinking about wands, I realized today that generally, wands (and scrolls) are going to be much more powerful items than they were in PF1 because spells don't have nearly as many level dependent features and are usually strongest at the level that they can first be cast. A resonance only system (unlimited charges) for wands would mean that wands have to be a lot more expensive to be balanced or else sorcerers are going to become the new super casters, collecting low level wands for all their various utility spells and having more than double as many spells as wizards everyday. This is already likely to become a problem with scrolls, but at least they do get consumed after usage and, unlike wizards, sorcerers can't spam making their own scrolls nearly as easily since they tend to know far less spells.
I am starting to wonder if wands as consumable spell batteries are something that should just be put to rest in this new edition. PF1 had too much of that anyway (scrolls, potions, wands and staves) all doing too much of the same thing, and in the end it became a matter of economics rather than flavor or narrative design that wands were the default magic spammer.
Wands in $e were interesting in how they broke the spell battery mold, and I think moving all wands over into something akin to what rods or staves in PF1 were would be far more interesting.
But it also seems like there is going to be a new balance issue with Charisma based Casters benefiting heavily from their expanded pool of resonance. Alchemists get to use their primary casting stat for resonance, and I imagine it won't be too long before feats allow other characters to switch the resonance stat as well, but if it requires a feat it will likely become a feat tax.
The one thing that seems certain though is every method to obtain a spell in a can at its base caster level is going to be more powerful than it was in PF1, and that seems like it could cause an additional set of issues for wands.
Mark Seifter says that he has not confirmed that wands use both charges and resonance. I am willing to wait for a preview that explains wands in detail.
However, he mentioned an interesting design challenge about wands:
You're certainly not wrong that there is a design space for "Resonance->Spell all day long" as an item (in fact, many items, as I said above, do work that way). But being that item would be a big departure for wands in terms of where they fit into your character's career (Imagine you had an item that was going to let a 5th-level sorcerer cast 9+ copies of a spell in a given day, every single day (and then pass it on and get even more uses from the other PCs); what level spell should that be to not completely overshadow her actual spells? Does that match your expectations for when a character might first receive a wand of that spell level?) We did have some other ideas for wands than a batch-discounted consumable, but we never really settled on them. Whether or not it's a wand, any consumable is going to have a number of total uses tied to its GP cost, not RP cost (for scrolls and potions, that is a single use).
My design challenge is to figure out how wands could:
(1) Use resonance, since that is the new magic-item mechanic that prevents spamming wands.(2) Cannot bypass the resonance limit by being handed to someone else.
(3) Still be a consumable rather than a permanent magic item.
(4) Fill the same niche in the game, since people liked that niche.
(5) Be less complicated than using 50 charges that cost (750 gp)x(spell level)x(caster level).
And I am willing to let anyone bend any of these requirements if their design makes the wands act more like wands from a popular folklore, fantasy novel, or movie.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mark Seifter says that he has not confirmed that wands use both charges and resonance. I am willing to wait for a preview that explains wands in detail.
That's not quite what he said. Based on reading his posts, I think the part he's denying he said is the part about Wands still having 50 charges.
If Resonance is a thing, wands should not have charges. That is just needless complexity.
If that is the case, they have to be priced like the permanent magic items they would become, and the new balance for magical items becomes, "is it better than being able to cast X spell an extra resonance amount of times per day?"
Which for sorcerers could be quite a lot.
If Resonance is a thing, wands should not have charges. That is just needless complexity.
Don't potions and scrolls also use up resonance? Unless things have changed greatly, these are still consumable magic items with a single charge.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...Unless of course we are just using "video game" as a way to say "I don't like it."
You mean that's NOT the correct usage? :-)
My group came up with the easy answer: Ban Craft Wands and wand purchases, and the only wands found are partially used. Makes you much more judicious about just burning a wand every time you finish a combat. We still allow Cure potions and scrolls, and there never seems to be a desire to carry around 50 potions or scrolls.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think wands should just be permanent magic items and be priced accordingly. Scrolls and Potions do a fine job of providing low level consumables let wands be their own thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think wands should just be permanent magic items and be priced accordingly. Scrolls and Potions do a fine job of providing low level consumables let wands be their own thing.
Agree, wands should never have been consumables to begin with. I still don't know what was the reason for it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
its a pretty old legacy thing, but I much prefer the wand and staff as focus for casters, empowering their spells, rather than being extra spells (per day, or consumable).
its a pretty old legacy thing, but I much prefer the wand and staff as focus for casters, empowering their spells, rather than being extra spells (per day, or consumable).
That is right, it makes much more sense
I have rationalized it by assuming that Potions and Scrolls require their user to impart a bit of magical energy in order to activate the effects.
So, can those without any knowledge of how to imbue this magical energy still drink a potion and gain the effects? What about someone who is unconscious? If it's not a willing, conscious effect, can you drain someone's innate essence by forcing potions on them? Does this also mean that a potion with negative effects (such as Cause Serious Wounds) would be negated if its would-be victim had already used up all of their Resonance for the day? There are so many aspects of Resonance that just don't make any sense if you think further along than just. "this is the ideal way in which this mechanic will be utilized."
I have rationalized it by assuming that Potions and Scrolls require their user to impart a bit of magical energy in order to activate the effects.So, can those without any knowledge of how to imbue this magical energy still drink a potion and gain the effects? What about someone who is unconscious? If it's not a willing, conscious effect, can you drain someone's innate essence by forcing potions on them? Does this also mean that a potion with negative effects (such as Cause Serious Wounds) would be negated if its would-be victim had already used up all of their Resonance for the day? There are so many aspects of Resonance that just don't make any sense if you think further along than just. "this is the ideal way in which this mechanic will be utilized."
Your speculation suggests to me that there are no potions of Cause Serious Wounds -- in fact, I recall reading that potions are no longer "spells in a bottle". But even if there are no specifically harmful potions, there might still be some whose effects you do not want (with or without spending Resonance for them).
I guess we will have to see (and review) how all of this works when we gain access to the playtest rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know it's a legacy thing but I've never been a fan of wands "breaking" after a certain number of uses.
I had imagined wands worked via:
- User invests n resonance during their breakfast ritual
- For each resonance invested, the wand gains x charges which expire at the end of the day.
We could make this easy to track by keeping the resonance/charge ratio easily trackable via excess dice (e.g. one resonance for 4, 6, 8, 10, or 12 charges, depending on the wand.)
Agree, wands should never have been consumables to begin with. I still don't know what was the reason for it.I think wands should just be permanent magic items and be priced accordingly. Scrolls and Potions do a fine job of providing low level consumables let wands be their own thing.
I see one reason for wands being consumable.
Imagine that your 2nd-level party defeats a CR 5 evil necromancer. The party claims a wand of fireball from the necromancer's body. It has 20 charges left on it. The party could sell the wand for 2,250 gp or they could let their own wizard use it. The XP from defeating the necromancer would advance the wizard to 3rdd level, giving him 2nd-level spells. But fireball is more powerful than 2nd-level spells. The wand gives the party an unbalancing advantage.
Making the wand a consumable eventually corrects the imbalance when the wand runs out of charges. The more the wizard uses the wand, the sooner it runs out.
On the other hand, if the wand cost resonance instead of charge, the wizard could use the wand as much as possible and still keep it, too.
This is a weak argument. Imagine that the wand had 40 charges instead of 20. By the time the wand ran out of charges, the wizard would probably be 5th level and casting fireballs as his own spells. At 5th level, both the charge-based wand and the resonance-based wand would be a tool appropriate for the wizard's level and would not unbalance the game.
Agree, wands should never have been consumables to begin with. I still don't know what was the reason for it.I think wands should just be permanent magic items and be priced accordingly. Scrolls and Potions do a fine job of providing low level consumables let wands be their own thing.
I see one reason for wands being consumable.
Imagine that your 2nd-level party defeats a CR 5 evil necromancer. The party claims a wand of fireball from the necromancer's body. It has 20 charges left on it. The party could sell the wand for 2,250 gp or they could let their own wizard use it. The XP from defeating the necromancer would advance the wizard to 3rdd level, giving him 2nd-level spells. But fireball is more powerful than 2nd-level spells. The wand gives the party an unbalancing advantage.
Making the wand a consumable eventually corrects the imbalance when the wand runs out of charges. The more the wizard uses the wand, the sooner it runs out.
On the other hand, if the wand cost resonance instead of charge, the wizard could use the wand as much as possible and still keep it, too.
This is a weak argument. Imagine that the wand had 40 charges instead of 20. By the time the wand ran out of charges, the wizard would probably be 5th level and casting fireballs as his own spells. At 5th level, both the charge-based wand and the resonance-based wand would be a tool appropriate for the wizard's level and would not unbalance the game.
For your example, I think the issue has more to do with spells in a can, specially if they are multi use, like other have mentioned before I too will prefer if wands and staves were a focus for casters, like magic weapons are for martials.
Agree, wands should never have been consumables to begin with. I still don't know what was the reason for it.I think wands should just be permanent magic items and be priced accordingly. Scrolls and Potions do a fine job of providing low level consumables let wands be their own thing.
I see one reason for wands being consumable.
Imagine that your 2nd-level party defeats a CR 5 evil necromancer. The party claims a wand of fireball from the necromancer's body. It has 20 charges left on it. The party could sell the wand for 2,250 gp or they could let their own wizard use it. The XP from defeating the necromancer would advance the wizard to 3rdd level, giving him 2nd-level spells. But fireball is more powerful than 2nd-level spells. The wand gives the party an unbalancing advantage.
Making the wand a consumable eventually corrects the imbalance when the wand runs out of charges. The more the wizard uses the wand, the sooner it runs out.
On the other hand, if the wand cost resonance instead of charge, the wizard could use the wand as much as possible and still keep it, too.
This is a weak argument. Imagine that the wand had 40 charges instead of 20. By the time the wand ran out of charges, the wizard would probably be 5th level and casting fireballs as his own spells. At 5th level, both the charge-based wand and the resonance-based wand would be a tool appropriate for the wizard's level and would not unbalance the game.
I am suggesting changing the place of wands in the game such that a CR 5 necromancer would not have a wand of fireball so that wouldn't be a problem. Instead by the time they could afford a wand for a level 3 spell fireball stops being a hugely powerful spell and casting one per round seems like a decent backup option competitive with higher leveled cantrips but not obviously superior, probably less damage than a cantrip but larger area.
If you want the necromancer to have consumables give him a bunch of scrolls he can cast at the party and then the players can sell/use them as they wish.
EDIT: You could also just make wands a power enhancer comparable to a +X sword more like a metamagic rod is in PF1e.
|
|
Mark confirmed that wands have 50 charges and they take 1 resonance use in the Playtest Reveals from the Crypt of the Everflame with GCP Finale!! thread.I did not confirm this in that thread.Indeed. Looking at his posts all he said was that they had charges and cost Resonance per use (like other consumables).
No mention of 50 charges at all. Which actually makes me hopeful for the 10 charge thing I suggested above. That'd be a lot simpler logistically.
It would also fit nicely with the comparison that Mark did in another thread between using 10 scrolls and using a wand ;-)
Mark confirmed that wands have 50 charges and they take 1 resonance use in the Playtest Reveals from the Crypt of the Everflame with GCP Finale!! thread.I did not confirm this in that thread.
Oh. I see. My mistake.
I really wish the length of time you could edit posts was longer.
If it is indeed 10 charges, as some people are speculating, I think that is an improvement. Actually, this is exactly a house rule I added. But I think chargeless wands are still worth thinking about.
One suggestion I think could work would be rolling a die, and having the wand be exhausted on a particular roll. I think being exhausted for the day, is better than being totally exhausted.
OPTION 3
When using a wand, you spend 1 resonance and roll 1d4. On a 1, the wand is exhausted for the day.
So, there is a 25% chance that you only get 1 use of the wand that day. But there is also a 5% chance that you can use it 10 times that day. There is a 40% chance you can use it at least 3 times a day, and a 30% chance you can use it at least 4 times a day. These seems like fairly good numbers, if we are talking about spells 1 or 2 levels below your maximum. This would have to be balanced with WBL.
I think you could push your wand when it is exhausted, but if you roll a 1 on the d4 the spell works, but then the wand is destroyed.
D3 rather than D4
Ok, so some people hate d4s with a fiery passion. Using a d6 and counting 1 and 2 as a fail obviously reduces wand effectiveness, but this could be balanced with the cost of the wand. 33% chance of only 1 use; 44% chance of at least 2 uses; 30% chance of at least 3 uses; 20% chance of at least 4 uses; 5% of at least 7 uses.
I think this could be a goer as well.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mark confirmed that wands have 50 charges and they take 1 resonance use in the Playtest Reveals from the Crypt of the Everflame with GCP Finale!! thread.I did not confirm this in that thread.Oh. I see. My mistake.
I really wish the length of time you could edit posts was longer.
If it is indeed 10 charges, as some people are speculating, I think that is an improvement. Actually, this is exactly a house rule I added. But I think chargeless wands are still worth thinking about.
I had an idea for wands that basically made them like extra spells prepared/in your repertoire, in that you spent resonance and a spell slot / prepared spell to cast the spell in the wand, thus increasing your spellcaster's flexibility by a ton with a permanent item without turning it into a bunch of extra spells. There was a fair push to keep wands as a multi-use consumable and not a permanent item, though. We wound up putting that idea to use elsewhere, and I think it's pretty cool where it currently rests.
I had an idea for wands that basically made them like extra spells prepared/in your repertoire, in that you spent resonance and a spell slot / prepared spell to cast the spell in the wand, thus increasing your spellcaster's flexibility by a ton with a permanent item without turning it into a bunch of extra spells. There was a fair push to keep wands as a multi-use consumable and not a permanent item, though. We wound up putting that idea to use elsewhere, and I think it's pretty cool where it currently rests.
I think if you can included a lot of possible options, with a reasonable degree of game balance, then people can pick and choose the options that appeals to them the most. Maybe the chargeless items can be called "orbs".
I know you guys have put a lot of thought into the game and I really appreciate that.
I had an idea for wands that basically made them like extra spells prepared/in your repertoire, in that you spent resonance and a spell slot / prepared spell to cast the spell in the wand, thus increasing your spellcaster's flexibility by a ton with a permanent item without turning it into a bunch of extra spells. There was a fair push to keep wands as a multi-use consumable and not a permanent item, though. We wound up putting that idea to use elsewhere, and I think it's pretty cool where it currently rests.Mark confirmed that wands have 50 charges and they take 1 resonance use in the Playtest Reveals from the Crypt of the Everflame with GCP Finale!! thread.I did not confirm this in that thread.Oh. I see. My mistake.
I really wish the length of time you could edit posts was longer.
If it is indeed 10 charges, as some people are speculating, I think that is an improvement. Actually, this is exactly a house rule I added. But I think chargeless wands are still worth thinking about.
Like 3.5 runestaff + resonance. Even in that case I still thinks is weird to have to pay resonance when you are already spending a spell slot.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I had an idea for wands that basically made them like extra spells prepared/in your repertoire, in that you spent resonance and a spell slot / prepared spell to cast the spell in the wand, thus increasing your spellcaster's flexibility by a ton with a permanent item without turning it into a bunch of extra spells. There was a fair push to keep wands as a multi-use consumable and not a permanent item, though. We wound up putting that idea to use elsewhere, and I think it's pretty cool where it currently rests.I think if you can included a lot of possible options, with a reasonable degree of game balance, then people can pick and choose the options that appeals to them the most.
I know you guys have put a lot of thought into the game and I really appreciate that.
I'm with you on that Malthraz, and there are definitely permanent, no daily-limit 1 RP -> spell effect items in the game. The question becomes which type of effect gets the special limited real estate of the major fantasy name/trope "wand." Right now, it's a multi-use consumable, as in PF1, but if everyone prefers wands be something else and multi-use consumables change as well (or I guess not exist and you just buy a lot of singletons), I'm sure we can mix things up based on your feedback.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm with you on that Malthraz, and there are definitely permanent, no daily-limit 1 RP -> spell effect items in the game. The question becomes which type of effect gets the special limited real estate of the major fantasy name/trope "wand." Right now, it's a multi-use consumable, as in PF1, but if everyone prefers wands be something else and multi-use consumables change as well (or I guess not exist and you just buy a lot of singletons), I'm sure we can mix things up based on your feedback.
I for one would really like to push the one use consumable to be the cost effective spell in a can and let wands be something much cooler. Scrolls or potions would probably have occupied that space if wands were not so much cheaper. I can't imagine anyone crying foul if wands changed function as long as they didn't lose out on the utility of cost efficient spells.
I am curious about how much the new spell model of spell's not being level dependent changes the utility of having low level scrolls or potions, which we wont see until we get the whole play test.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Resonance itself still doesn’t ‘resonate’ with me. It’s one of the aspects of the edition that so far is leaving me the coldest.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
HMMmmmm... This is sounding a lot like "People are pushing through encounters by using wands instead of our nicely balanced power system" vs "Our spellcasters run short on power so that our other characters can't push through." So they are limiting the use of magic items to reduce the power boost that characters can get... which also feels a lot like "Characters can only own X gp worth of gear at their level." rules.ddd
I do not like these rules in general, because in an attempt to homogenize the character power levels they put artificial restrictions.. "Yes, you can loot the entire keep and sell the furniture in the market, but you can't spend the money 'cause that would put you out of capacity for your level."
Does anyone know if they will be applying this resonance use to multipowered magic items? Thus a breastplate that also has a "You can enter an otherdimensional space" like in Giantslayer uses 1 slot to wear plus 1 slot every time you hide in the space? If so, what about a sword that has 3 +1 enchantments on it? Does it take 3 slots to use? A sword that has 2 +1 enchantments and a Bane?
I suspect they are using this to nerf spellcasters while fighters will get to use their magic items (armor, weapons, etc) while spellcasters will be limited... because they certainly aren't going to charge you resonance every time you swing your +1 sword.. they are going to charge you once in the entire day. But a spellcaster will be limited in uses per day with the magic items they use the most... which puts the rest of the group left waiting on spellcasters AGAIN.
Boojum