Pathfinder 2 Blog: Critical Success and Failure

[ComaVision]

I'm really hoping that, now we have context for spells in PF2, Friday will be the big reveal on the skill system. I think it's more likely we'll get a caster class preview though.

The skill system is going to make or break PF2 for me. If it doesn't do anything to narrow the martial-caster disparity, or happens way too late game, then I can't see my group switching.

[khadgar567]

I'm really hoping that, now we have context for spells in PF2, Friday will be the big reveal on the skill system. I think it's more likely we'll get a caster class preview though.

The skill system is going to make or break PF2 for me. If it doesn't do anything to narrow the martial-caster disparity, or happens way too late game, then I can't see my group switching.

nah my money on either wizard or sorc getting blog or we might get magic item / resonance post.

[Psyren]

Unless fly suddenly becomes a 7th level spell, Skill trees will still massively drag behind spells.

Fly is 3rd in 5e and people seem to enjoy that game; perfect balance between skills and spells is unnecessary.

[Pex]

The racial bonuses to certain attributes depending on race used to be there to model and enforce certain races or subraces gravitating more towards certain classes, with the Human's floating bonus in line with them being the jack-of-all-trades race. I think removing these kinks players need to work around diminishes the game, in the same way removing technical curves diminishes a race track.

In the beginning, 2E for me but otherwise after being a race was your class, depending on race you could only be certain classes. It was forbidden to be a dwarf wizard. It was forbidden to be an elf paladin. 3E got rid of that. Technically you could be a dwarf wizard or elf paladin but the racial modifiers discouraged it. Modifiers encourage particular race/class combos. That's why whenever anyone plays a halfling, you can be 99.9999% sure he's a rogue. If a player's character is a dwarf, bet your house he's not a sorcerer. I know I'm ready to do away with the racial/class stereotypes. Divorcing ability score bonuses from the races will encourage that.

[Psyren]

I know I'm ready to do away with the racial/class stereotypes. Divorcing ability score bonuses from the races will encourage that.

If you want to do that in your games, it's as easy as making every single race have the floating +2. Why does the system need to do it for you? The default is meant as an aid for worldbuilding - a flawed world full of inequities, much like our own.

[Cosi]

Fly is 3rd in 5e and people seem to enjoy that game; perfect balance between skills and spells is unnecessary.

There's a lot wrong with this post.

First, just because it is unnecessary to achieve perfect balance, that doesn't mean we should ignore balance entirely. It's impossible to make a game everyone will like, but that doesn't mean we should completely ignore people's preferences when we design games.

Second, "people enjoy it" isn't really a good guide to game design. People enjoy almost every game ever made to some degree or another. People enjoyed 3e, 4e, and 5e (sure, at different rates, but all of those games have fans). Does that mean we should simultaneously have a game that goes 20 levels and 30 levels, does and doesn't have bounded accuracy, and both includes and excludes the Warlock and Warlord in the PHB?

Third, "fly is 3rd level in 5e" isn't enough to hang an argument on. It's like saying "mountain hammer is a 2nd level maneuver, therefore it's okay if tripping is bad". You don't have enough data to make your argument good, bad, or anything.

If you want to do that in your games, it's as easy as making every single race have the floating +2. Why does the system need to do it for you? The default is meant as an aid for worldbuilding - a flawed world full of inequities, much like our own.

Why does the system need to coddle your apparent inability to create a setting without basing it on racial sterotypes?

[ComaVision]

Why does the system need to coddle your apparent inability to create a setting without basing it on racial sterotypes?

One of the stated design goals of PF2 is "Golarion infused". It's deliberately reflecting the default setting's lore.

[MeeposFire]

Fly is 3rd in 5e and people seem to enjoy that game; perfect balance between skills and spells is unnecessary.

True but one has to consider that 5e has some key changes that make a difference between a 3rd level spell in PF or 3e and a 3rd level spell in 5e. For instance using fly means you cannot use a different spell that uses concentration and that can be a very big deal. Also a 3rd level slot is more valuable because generally you have less slots in 5e and less items and abilities that essentially give you more (for instance you could buy a wand of fly in 3e for a not so big price but it does not usually work like that in 5e).

So yes a 5e wizard can still cast fly at level 5 with a 3rd level slot but it is going to cost that wizard more than the PF wizard.

[upho]

And there was a lot of whining about this situation back when WOTC had 4E forums

I actually think you're wrong here, because it's a false equivalence. The reason for any 4e whining was because in that system an extra 5% permanent accuracy actually was a pretty rare thing and had a value much greater than it has in 3.5/PF. And I cannot recall much whining about this either, especially since at least more optimized builds could usually still get their permanent "average" accuracy up to above 85% or so, which in a real game usually translated into hitting on a 2+ roll also against very high CR opponents when needed (due to tons of possible temporary bonuses).

In this respect, yes. 4e's idea that you would simply stop being a Fighter at 10th level was a good idea that, if implemented well, would have improved the game. Now, as it happens, the implementation was pretty bad in a lot of ways. Aside from the universal problems with 4e (it sucks and none of the abilities characters get are things you care about), Paragon Paths shouldn't be crap like "Pit Fighter" or "Polearm Master" (yes, those are real paragon paths). The Epic Destinies are mostly all right, though there are some I think should probably be shifted down (but nothing as stupid as having "fights in a pit" as a Paragon Path).

Eh...? Just FYI, the abilities of the 4e "Pit Fighter" and especially "Polearm Master" were not weak stuff you don't care about, and they could definitely shift a build from "decent" into "very powerful". And no, I don't mean this in the "everybody was the same in 4e"-myth context, I mean it's a very real and even mathematically proven fact. Frankly, if you don't see that for example the Polearm Master paragon path had highly unique features which not only would remain build-defining all the way up to 30th level, but also allow for builds at a power level which most 3.5 or PF martials can only dream about, it's simply because you don't have enough 4e-fu. (And yes, also in 4e your average build of X class were typically not even remotely close to playing in the same league as that of a highly optimized version of the same class, even if the differences were of course incomparable to those of PF casters.)

That said, there were of course a lot of crappy paragon paths and "epic destiny" options as well, as is the standard for pretty much all categories of options in all games by WoTC (or Paizo) so far. But the Pit Fighter and the Polearm Master are decidedly poor examples of such crappy options, regardless of what you may think of their names.

Otherwise, I agree. Although personally, if P2 intends to do anything similar, I really hope the PrCs/Paragon Paths/later-level-class-thingys are going to be vastly less starting class dependent than I've ever seen them being in basically any game with a similar class related progression structure. Meaning they would have to actually allow for the same kind of flexibility and a comparable number of possible viable combinations as P1 multiclassing does. Otherwise, judging by the fear of front loading we've seen so far, we're just gonna end up with boring pre-defined "class prisons" à la 2E again, where every PC starting as fighter ends up having mechanics very similar to every other PC starting as fighter.

This has nothing to do with bounded accuracy, and point buy as it exists in Pathfinder does some of this (as you point out). Going from 17 to 18 is 4 point buy points, going from 10 to 11 only 1. However, this doesn't apply to increasing the scores later (it's just +1 every 4th level), which is why you tend to actually see those sorts of tradeoffs in character creation, but not in character advancement, where it instead becomes the most important stat always getting a boost.

Well, again, we already know level-up stat increases will work as in Starfinder: +1 to scores at 16+ or +2 to scores below 16.

Nice to see that they have copied rituals from 4e. Less excited to see more spells of the same caliber as Wish and Miracle.

Absolutely agree. Also, if they're going to keep ridiculous spells such as Wish and Miracle, why didn't they simply make them rituals instead of 10th level spellls? If rituals are actually viable options for non-casters, making the most powerful spells rituals seems like a good idea.

Fly is 3rd in 5e and people seem to enjoy that game; perfect balance between skills and spells is unnecessary.

Course not. But IMO there's a whole continent of difference between "perfectly balanced" and say "dramatically more balanced than in PF1". And so far, nothing indicates P2 will actually achieve the latter. And I don't mean that just when it comes to spells vs skills, but also when it comes to spells vs pretty much anything else. Meaning we still haven't seen anything which indicates P2 won't struggle with largely the same C/MD issues as P1 does, but plenty which indicates that it will. So I hope the details we haven't seen are very different from the ones revealed so far.

[Psyren]

True but one has to consider that 5e has some key changes that make a difference between a 3rd level spell in PF or 3e and a 3rd level spell in 5e. For instance using fly means you cannot use a different spell that uses concentration and that can be a very big deal. Also a 3rd level slot is more valuable because generally you have less slots in 5e and less items and abilities that essentially give you more (for instance you could buy a wand of fly in 3e for a not so big price but it does not usually work like that in 5e).

So yes a 5e wizard can still cast fly at level 5 with a 3rd level slot but it is going to cost that wizard more than the PF wizard.

Right, and compared to Pathfinder 1.0 those differences matter. We don't yet know how concentration will work in P2, and as for a wand of fly, burning your resonance on that vs. climbing a rope may indeed make climbing the rope an attractive alternative.

Course not. But IMO there's a whole continent of difference between "perfectly balanced" and say "dramatically more balanced than in PF1". And so far, nothing indicates P2 will actually achieve the latter.

I see several indications that the gap will be smaller already - things like Resonance, action-based component casting, and slot-based heightening. In other words, casting - both natively and from items - looks to be more difficult/costly than in P1 based on what we've been shown so far.

[upho]

I see several indications that the gap will be smaller already - things like Resonance, action-based component casting, and slot-based heightening. In other words, casting - both natively and from items - looks to be more difficult/costly than in P1 based on what we've been shown so far.

How so? Seems to me Resonance nerfs the more item-dependent martials a lot more than casters. Not to mention that we can be pretty certain no martial classes will have Cha as their main stat, but that at least two caster classes will. And slot-based heightening may very well ultimately simply result in more casting flexibility; as advertised, it allows for getting more use out of lower level spells known. (And it should be noted that plenty of spells likely won't have any need for heightening since they'll remain useful anyways, as mentioned by previous posters).

[Psyren]

How so? Seems to me Resonance nerfs the more item-dependent martials a lot more than casters.

I think it has a bigger impact on consumables, which casters were more reliant on for extending past their slot limitations. Combine that with fewer slots/bonus slots in general and I think you'll arrive at something closer to 5e's paradigm.

And slot-based heightening may very well ultimately simply result in more casting flexibility; as advertised, it allows for getting more use out of lower level spells known.

But they do so by paying for them with higher slots, which they'll need if spells don't autoscale as well as they used to. So yes, you get more flexibility in what spells you can learn, but the opportunity cost to actually use them would still be higher - again, like it is in 5e.

(And it should be noted that plenty of spells likely won't have any need for heightening since they'll remain useful anyways, as mentioned by previous posters).

This again depends on how they'll scale, which is a detail we don't know yet.

[Raven777]

Why does the system need to coddle your apparent inability to create a setting without basing it on racial sterotypes?

For one, because tropes are not stereotypes and using tropes as a universal language to convey immediately understandable expectations and intents in design, while making few but interesting allowances for deviations as "flavor", is considered best practice when building a core setting. For second, because system depth, especially ease of access versus rewarding mastery, is carved out of the interplay of constraints and allowances over many subsystems, races being one of those.

This conversation, if it is to have any merit, is gonna be about design. I advise against dragging it into ethics.

[Pex]

If you want to do that in your games, it's as easy as making every single race have the floating +2. Why does the system need to do it for you? The default is meant as an aid for worldbuilding - a flawed world full of inequities, much like our own.

Anyone can make house rules for anything. That's irrelevant.

[Psyren]

Anyone can make house rules for anything. That's irrelevant.

It's perfectly relevant. We're talking about what the default should be, and your desire is mutually exclusive with mine. One has to give, and yours is a heck of a lot easier to houserule.

[137beth]

Why does the system need to do it for you?

Why should I pay Paizo money for a "game" that I have to create myself?

[Pex]

It's perfectly relevant. We're talking about what the default should be, and your desire is mutually exclusive with mine. One has to give, and yours is a heck of a lot easier to houserule.

But we're talking about a new system, not what we have now. For a new system new things can be tried. With racial features not including ability score bonuses be the official, if they do that, that would help avoid race/class combo stereotypes which is what I was talking about. It's conjecture, not demanding that must be done right now to Pathfinder as it is currently published.

Anyway, as for the new magic system, I see they're converting it to 5E magic and calling it a new idea. Even Cantrips get the 5E treatment. The only differences is in what they don't say - no one spell only concentration mechanic and no change in number of spell slots. Those may or may not appear when the playtest is released, but welcome to 5E Magic Pathfinder's version.

[Psyren]

Why should I pay Paizo money for a "game" that I have to create myself?

If that's what you want in your game, then you absolutely shouldn't; furthermore, I never said you should.

But we're talking about a new system, not what we have now. For a new system new things can be tried.

And homogenizing all the races is a thing to try... why exactly?

Anyway, as for the new magic system, I see they're converting it to 5E magic and calling it a new idea. Even Cantrips get the 5E treatment. The only differences is in what they don't say - no one spell only concentration mechanic and no change in number of spell slots. Those may or may not appear when the playtest is released, but welcome to 5E Magic Pathfinder's version.

Well for starters, 5e's magic system is one of the things I like most about it (including the scaling cantrips), so I'm all for that.
And second, not seeing where they claimed scaling cantrips are a "new idea." New to PF, at best.

[Pex]

And homogenizing all the races is a thing to try... why exactly?

Who said anything about homogenizing the races? All I conjectured was getting rid of ability score bonuses from the races. They can have all the unique racial features you want.

[Psyren]

Who said anything about homogenizing the races? All I conjectured was getting rid of ability score bonuses from the races. They can have all the unique racial features you want.

And if those features make, say, halflings and elves the best rogues, how is that different than just giving them a dex bonus?

Moreover, why is something like "in general, elves are more lithe, dwarves are more stout, and orcs are more ferocious than humans" a bad thing in the first place?

Yeah, you could come up with a very specific suite of racials to capture all that, all for the novelty of saying your races don't have modifiers anymore. I just don't see what it would add beyond that novelty.

[Kurald Galain]

Who said anything about homogenizing the races? All I conjectured was getting rid of ability score bonuses from the races.

Unless you want to make ability scores irrelevant or get rid of them entirely, I don't see any benefit to that approach.

Anyway most P2 races seen so far do have a "floating" +2.

[Morty]

I really don't think the choice is between using attribute score modifiers and "homogenizing" the races. Different races should feel different in play... which attribute bonuses and penalties don't actually accomplish. Like attributes in general, they're a numbers game that adds up to the same thing more often than not.

I quit playing a dwarf rogue in 5e recently, because of how horrifically dull the class is there. But while still playing the character, I wondered what she'd look like in 4e and realized that while 4e's racial abilities are a very mixed bag, there's some that work.

While a dwarf's racial stat bonuses would be as inconsequential to a crossbow-using rogue in 4e as they are in 5e, things like using Second Wind as a minor action certainly wouldn't be. This is the kind of thing that actually affects how a character plays. Every character is going to lose HP, and a dwarf can shrug it off and keep doing more easily, regardless of which class they are. Every class benefits from that, but no non-dwarf can do that. This might lead to a situation where a dwarf character takes more risks because they know they'll have an easier time healing. That's something we want and something the +2 Con modifier doesn't do.

Minor flavorful bonuses like poison resistance are also useful for every class when they do come up. All the fiddly little +2/+1 modifiers to skills aren't, but 4e is lousy with those in any event.

The PF 2e designers seem to have realized that to some degree, which is why we're getting ancestry feats. The quality of which has varied so far. But since they're optional, they can actually synergize with classes, because if this halfling feat doesn't work for a sorcerer... your halfling sorcerer doesn't have to take it.

[Pex]

And if those features make, say, halflings and elves the best rogues, how is that different than just giving them a dex bonus?

Moreover, why is something like "in general, elves are more lithe, dwarves are more stout, and orcs are more ferocious than humans" a bad thing in the first place?

Yeah, you could come up with a very specific suite of racials to capture all that, all for the novelty of saying your races don't have modifiers anymore. I just don't see what it would add beyond that novelty.

More than just rogues would appreciate a halfling's resistance to fear. More than just rogues would appreciate an elf's resistance to sleep and charm. More than just rogues would appreciate low-light or darkvision. Ferocious is an attitude. An orc wizard burning his enemies in fireballs is as ferocious as the orc barbarian disemboweling his enemies with a great axe.

[137beth]

Just in terms of the blog itself, I think that this magic blog is much better written than the previous ones. This post seems like the first time they are giving us enough information that it can be meaningfully analyzed.

Someone on the Paizo thread said something I thought was pretty entertaining.

I'm worried that none of these new spells listed will be nearly as good as a 14th level Fighter being able to add their +2 Shield AC to Reflex Saves against a few narrowly defined types of attacks.

I just don't want casters feeling like they can't keep up with the new reality warping powers that are being granted to martials in PF2, so I hope their primary class features are also doing amazing things like providing minor highly situational numeric boosts.

[Psyren]

More than just rogues would appreciate a halfling's resistance to fear. More than just rogues would appreciate an elf's resistance to sleep and charm. More than just rogues would appreciate low-light or darkvision.

None of that relates to elves and halflings being more agile/lithe, as fantasy typically depicts them. Equally important, you can have all of that stuff AND a dex bonus just fine.

I really don't think the choice is between using attribute score modifiers and "homogenizing" the races. Different races should feel different in play... which attribute bonuses and penalties don't actually accomplish. Like attributes in general, they're a numbers game that adds up to the same thing more often than not.

It's less about "feeling different in play" (class does that actually, not race) and more about explaining why race X tends toward or away from class Y in general. For example, dwarves have disdain for sorcery and few practice it, and their racial Cha penalty helps explain that tendency mechanically. Similarly, elf barbarians aren't much of a thing (outside of Eberron anyway) and their Con penalty dovetails with that nicely.

None of that stops you from playing a Dwarf Sorcerer or an Elf Barbarian, and even from being a very strong one. But it does explain why such combinations are rare even among the already rare subset of the population that take up adventuring as a career.

[Pex]

None of that relates to elves and halflings being more agile/lithe, as fantasy typically depicts them. Equally important, you can have all of that stuff AND a dex bonus just fine.

But you don't absolutely must have the dex bonus. Agile and lithe could mean faster movement rate, which I understand elves are getting. It's still only a conjecture of what could be done. Apparently they're keeping the bonuses and giving everyone a floater +2. Hopefully the floater will be the thing that stops race/class stereotypes to get PC dwarf wizards and halfling barbarians.

I hope more that Humans don't get dealt a raw deal of bland ribbons.

[Morty]

Just in terms of the blog itself, I think that this magic blog is much better written than the previous ones. This post seems like the first time they are giving us enough information that it can be meaningfully analyzed.

Someone on the Paizo thread said something I thought was pretty entertaining.

That's an amusing and accurate way of putting it. And we certainly did get a lot more information than from any other blog post.

It's less about "feeling different in play" (class does that actually, not race) and more about explaining why race X tends toward or away from class Y in general. For example, dwarves have disdain for sorcery and few practice it, and their racial Cha penalty helps explain that tendency mechanically. Similarly, elf barbarians aren't much of a thing (outside of Eberron anyway) and their Con penalty dovetails with that nicely.

None of that stops you from playing a Dwarf Sorcerer or an Elf Barbarian, and even from being a very strong one. But it does explain why such combinations are rare even among the already rare subset of the population that take up adventuring as a career.

I consider providing a distinct experience of playing each race a far more worthwhile goal than modelling fantasy demographics. Or penalizing people for picking class/race combos that go against those demographics. Especially if we're then going to reduce those penalties anyway.

[Psyren]

I consider providing a distinct experience of playing each race a far more worthwhile goal than modelling fantasy demographics.

These aren't mutually exclusive goals, you can do both.

But you don't absolutely must have the dex bonus. Agile and lithe could mean faster movement rate, which I understand elves are getting. It's still only a conjecture of what could be done. Apparently they're keeping the bonuses and giving everyone a floater +2. Hopefully the floater will be the thing that stops race/class stereotypes to get PC dwarf wizards and halfling barbarians.

I hope more that Humans don't get dealt a raw deal of bland ribbons.

Then I guess we'll see.

[upho]

I think it has a bigger impact on consumables, which casters were more reliant on for extending past their slot limitations. Combine that with fewer slots/bonus slots in general and I think you'll arrive at something closer to 5e's paradigm.

Maybe. But if that happens I'm pretty certain it won't be due to Resonance; it will be due to fewer slots. The C/MD issue doesn't go away from PF1 should you remove consumables, and I'm more inclined to think it would end up as in 3.5 (where this has been tested more in detail). Meaning it wouldn't have a noticeable impact on the power difference. But yes, all this depends on details we don't know yet (such as the relative usefulness of consumables vs permanent items vs spells etc).

But they do so by paying for them with higher slots, which they'll need if spells don't autoscale as well as they used to. So yes, you get more flexibility in what spells you can learn, but the opportunity cost to actually use them would still be higher - again, like it is in 5e.

Here's two interesting posts by Mark relating to this:

Cantrips aren't 0-level spells; they're spells you can perform all day. The damaging cantrips aren't super powerful compared to a martial's attacks in any case, but they'll still change what sorts of things you want to prepare in your various spell slots. So for instance, if you're really high level and have a cantrip that deals the same damage as a 1st-level magic missile, it might make sense to prepare utility spells in your 1st-level slots unless you have a reason to really want no-miss force damage in particular on that day.

I've been looking forward to blogs that actually address what I see as the principal issues with the current Pathfinder game, the caster/martial power discrepancy and the way that the turns of some classes with companions can take twice as long as many other classes. I'm happy to see this post give some initial ideas on magic, but I don't see it (or any of the other posts so far) actually address the power discrepancy. The heightening of spells described in this, including the heightening of cantrips, seems to actual increase the power of caster, potentially increasing the discrepancy. The new system also seems to add considerably to the complexity of the game system. I'd like to hear more about what Paizo staff thought were the biggest problems with the existing system and their plans for fixing those problems. Instead, we've heard a lot about fixing things that aren't broken (again in my opinion), such as changing races and racial traits to ancestries and ancestry feats.

Well the key to making a system less prone to those sorts of problems is that we need to address those problems in a balanced fashion. If you just make spellcasters weaker, that's not particularly exciting. But if you give all sorts of fun new opportunities to heighten spells and much better at-will cantrip options? That's a much better way to design a system where the casters are no longer quite as exponential in power increases (heightening being how you increase effects means you should hopefully no longer have a situation where a 20th level caster can still end the entire fight with one 4th level spell, which she can at that point do for every fight because she has dozens of spells of 4th level or higher), but it allows more opportunities and cool stuff that feels like more power, as you mention, when it's really different power, evening out the smaller turns you don't cast your big wow spell (through heightened cantrips) while lessening the number of "I win" buttons.

Judging by this, I'd say my suspicions are mostly correct when it comes to lower level slots being mainly for utility spells, while the higher level ones will often be primarily reserved for (often heightened) big guns combat stuff.

I believe the greatest potential flaw in Mark's reasoning is the apparent belief that it's 4th level combat spells that end entire fights at 20th level in P1. If disregarding certain metamagic shenanigans, IME such combat spells are pretty worthless at that level, while what is primarily considered lower level utility spells remain potentially encounter-solving, or at least more so than anything martials bring to the fight (stuff like DD, haste, fly etc). I can only hope such spells also have their higher level usefulness gated with heightening, instead of just the most obviously combat focused ones.

In addition, P1 can at least theoretically be considered more "balanced" if judged according to the following philosophy:

• Martial has 10 "effect" in each of the three rounds of each of the first three encounters (30 per encounter), and 13 in each of the four rounds in the fourth and last fifth vs the BBEG (52 per encounter), for a total of 11.4 "EPR" (194 over 17 rounds).
• Caster has 5 "effect" in each round in the first three encounters (15 per encounter); 20, 14, 5, 5 in the fourth; and 35, 30, 25, 15 in the last fifth encounter vs the BBEG, for the same EPR as the fighter.

Ergo: martial and caster are balanced.

But in a real game, the caster is of course going to be not just vastly more useful, but his spells will also grant him far more "shine time" when he saves the day in the fight against the BBEG and ends up the hero of the story. Meanwhile, the martial gets an honorable mention in the footnotes as an effective mooks clean-up guy. The new casting system doesn't seem to address this at all AFAICT, unless they also intend to radically improve martials' ability to step up their game when needed (or change the typical structure of an adventuring day or something).

[Psyren]

Here's two interesting posts by Mark relating to this:

---

Judging by this, I'd say my suspicions are mostly correct when it comes to lower level slots being mainly for utility spells, while the higher level ones will often be primarily reserved for (often heightened) big guns combat stuff.

I'm not seeing how that contradicts anything I said though. "Big guns combat stuff" are the encounters where you're most likely to, you know, die - so the dearth of higher-level slots is still an important balancing factor, because you'll need to devote a relatively greater percentage of your most powerful spells to not dying, with fewer left over for miscellaneous purposes. Using our more numerous lower level slots primarily for utility is exactly what I want.

In addition to that, P2 gives us the new paradigm where lower level spells can't trump higher-level ones - i.e. detect magic can't spot major image or detect greater invisibility, say, or protection from evil can't beat dominate monster anymore etc. So even if you're packing your lower level slots with utility, you'll still want to devote some higher level ones to that role too, increasing the paucity of those slots further and making the casters choose very carefully which encounters they try to end with a single spell (if they even still can) and which ones they'll have to let the mundanes shine in.

Maybe. But if that happens I'm pretty certain it won't be due to Resonance; it will be due to fewer slots. The C/MD issue doesn't go away from PF1 should you remove consumables, and I'm more inclined to think it would end up as in 3.5 (where this has been tested more in detail). Meaning it wouldn't have a noticeable impact on the power difference. But yes, all this depends on details we don't know yet (such as the relative usefulness of consumables vs permanent items vs spells etc).

Well for starters let's be clear - my own goal/hope isn't to make C/MD go away, not entirely. Even 5e didn't do that, and by all observable evidence it's doing fine.

So with that, I'm not saying reducing consumables will solve balance by any means - but I do think it has the potential to improve it. Because when you can't carry a library's worth of scrolls around, or leave half your slots empty at the beginning of the day just in case something comes up, mundane solutions to problems (be they a trio of bugbears or a locked door leading to the mansion cellar) become a lot more appealing, I'd say.