|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
GM Rednal wrote:
I can't give an answer to this other than "It'd depend".
It'd depend on a host of factors like how "gritty" the campaign is meant to be, how the players would react to a character death, whether I had a juicy mini plot all set to go just up there in the town that's ruined without that dead PC's involvement, but most importantly would be how the players feel about "letting the dice fall as they may".
I'll spitball my answer in saying I' probably fudge a scenario like that in the players' or player's favor, but there could certainly be very plausible contexts where I wouldn't.
I wonder if people are missing the angle I'm illustrating. If so, no big deal. I actually agree with the interpretation given in the posts since my last one... and I don't want to see rules lawyers arguing the angle I'm referring to, so I'm not going to elucidate further.
Let's all agree to agree then ;)
That's not what I said and I suspect you know it. To reiterate:
I said upthread that players-
And in the post you just responded to, I was simply drawing a distinction between the amount of power wielded with regards to decreeing plot points. GMs have it and players don't.
You questioned what's the difference between a player fudging in the name of a better story and a GM doing it. I answered:
The GM gets to decide what's "better". A player's opinion on that matter may help inform/influence the GM's, but a player does not get to fudge/cheat in the name of bettering the story because he doesn't get to impose his opinion on everyone else about what indeed is better for the story. Only the GM CAN (not just may) do that.
Because in a face to face, tabletop RPG there's only one person who's empowered to unilaterally decide what's "good" for the story, and a player isn't that one person.
Sure, a good GM should usually factor players' opinions into his decisions about what's for the good of the story, but still he's different from the players in that he gets to decree fiats.
I'm not surprised at the ruling, even though I argued the other way. Handwavium or "it was just magic..." is pretty much the only way to explain how an immobile victim somehow moved across thin air and landed safely upon a downward sloped surface implicitly devoid of anything to snag and hang upon.
I'm actually intrigued by the decision to remove evasion. And I see the next rules dispute in what that RAW means.
"However, you lose evasion in these circumstances."
Which are "these" circumstances? When you make a save and magically move, or any/all circumstances where you make a save with 0 dex?
Let the arguments begin anew.
If it makes for a better story can a non DM player cheat?
Well, in Pathfinder, that's pretty much what you're doing every time you make a Diplomacy check to influence an NPC's behavior towards your PC.
An NPC, even one with the Diplomacy skill, may not use Diplomacy to force your PC to behave in a more friendly manner. Players cheat as a matter of recourse, since the universe/story literally revolves around their PCs.
But, with what I suspect is more to the point behind your question, No. Players don't get to do all the things the GM might happen to do. That's the nature of the game. If you don't think that's the nature of the game, then (face to face, table top) RPGs may not be for you.
Since you're soliciting opinions, here's mine.
Yes, you're in the wrong. Not disastrously so, but you're stepping on toes. Just from what you posted, it sounds like its your fellow players you're annoying. I theorize that you may also be aggravating your GM, but that's just a guess.
Suggestion: allow your GM to provide exposition about the neat cultural oddities and bizarre monsters that relate to your PCs current travels. The GM may have had some social encounter planned to do exactly that, and if you go blabbing all the plot data in an OOC manner during table talk you cheated everyone involved, yourself included. By all means, do remember that if the GM has some detail "wrong", it may not be wrong at all. It could be a deliberate change he's made to the setting, or maybe even that wrongness was supposed to be a subtle clue relating to the current plot.
Further advice: Sometimes you just have to do the verbal equivalent of sitting on your hands. Sometimes people don't mind the kibitzer spouting OOC talk, but given you've heard complaints about your doing that it seems safe to assume they do mind. Perhaps your GM is willing to allow you to put your knowledge to "good use". Perhaps, if you communicate with him, you could become something of a designated "information spigot" about general info about the world, while possibly excluding some key tidbits he wants you to avoid mentioning. He can cue you in to start talking about whatever topic at the appointed time, and while you fill the other players in about what "everyone knows about X" the GM can review notes and prepare for upcoming encounters.
My personal rule on allowing evil PCs in a campaign could also apply to a Calistrian PC who potentially feels the need to take revenge on her comrades.
"You may play an Evil/Calistrian PC at my table, but I still require that you be a good teammate to your fellow players. It is YOUR responsiblity to come up with a rationale for why your PC does not indulge in evil acts/revenge upon your fellow players' PCs. If you cannot imagine such a rationale, then you're not ready to play an evil/Calistrian PC at my table. I never tolerate "But it's what my character would do!" as an excuse for inexcusable behavior."
Of course in a campaign where PvP is encouraged/permitted, your milage on such a rule will certainly vary.
My opinion is that a GM can't cheat any more than the author of a novel can cheat in creating his script. Of course the BBEG is going to lose at the climax of the story, because noone actually wants to read a story where the hero goes through trials and tribulations just to come up short and fail at the end.
Now yes a RPG has more give-and-take in creating the story than the author of a novel does... since the characters in the story told by a RPG have voices in the players at the table! But, perhaps unlike some/many players of RPGs in these contemporary times, I still view RPGs as being cooperative storytelling events closer to sedentary games of Cops-N-Robbers than computerized (and imo misnamed) "RPGs" like World of Warquest and Elder Scrolls. Slavish adherence to the metaruleset is imo anathema to Role Playing Games. That's the realm computer games are designed for, and if I had my way never the two would meet.
In playing RPGs (on both sides of the GM screen) for about 40 years now, my opinion on how much fudging is appropriate has waxed and waned, and with no small influence on the game system that happened to be played at the time. If you're NOT fudging in Paranoia, for example, you're demonstrably GMing it wrong...
In a game like Pathfinder, I see fudging as a way to ensure a good story is being told. Hell, I see the entire CR mechanic as fudging. Why is it "fair" that the PCs mainly/only face CR-appropriate opposition? That's not realistic at all, and certainly not fair to the NPCs of the setting. If fair's fair and let the dice fall where they may is the order of the day, then why shouldn't low level PCs simply have to face the occasional rampaging Red Dragon or such? In my view, the answer is because that'd be a terrible story where the heroes abruptly end up as dragon poop. The CR system is ensuring that the heroes only face opposition that allows them to be heroic (and almost always victorious). It's a mechanism for telling a good story.
OTOH, if the Dragon rampages the PCs village when they're low level and the plot intends for them to live through the event, gain experience, and then go back and confront (and defeat) the dragon when they're up to that CR challenge... that's a fine (if perhaps trite) campaign story, is it not? BUUUUUT... that early razing of the village where the PCs were intended to survive... what is that if not fudging?
PFS uses all the rules in the CRB excepting what they specifically exclude (e.g. crafting feats, cohorts, etc). The rules cited above on pg 402 of the CRB are not excluded in this way.
Of course, it's just as impprtant in PFS as in a house game for the gm and players to have compatible expectations. While a PFS GM has every right to invoke dice fudging, he needs to be cognizant of whether the players are used to having GMs that never do so. Much like invoking Rule Zero, a wise GM picks his battles. Just because you're right, it doesn't mean it's the wisest thing to do.
They're worded the way they are because Rule Zero is assumed to be in effect. No need to qualify how feats work in every context because there's a GM there to cover "you can't do X under Y conditions."
Depends on where the crew went. If something dragged them down to Davy Jones Locker, the best he'll probably be able to do is discover what sort of thing dragged them overboard. Tracking through the sea itself is likely impossible due to terrain modifiers (and then there's the temporal modifiers, if terrain didn't already make the task impossible..). Not unless the ranger has some magic or shark-like sense of smell to make possi le what is impossible for a regular (meta)human, no matter how skilled.
I play 2 cavaliers in PFS... one is retired @ lvl 12 and the second is lvl 7.
Both are medium sized and ride horses. I get a ton of fun out of both of them. Various tricks I've used:
How to get your horse through dungeons where you can't ride it?
How do you get a charge off at a table full of non-teamwork oriented comrades?
2) It's not that big a deal to get a charge off. I consider myself happy to get one such charge in the entire night. Other players, the GM included, are here to have fun too and usually watching you solo the fight isn't much fun.
3) Related to 2: you can fight without charging, you know. If you stand still/5 foot step, you get all your attacks PLUS your horse's 3 attacks. And players in my area call my Cavaliers' mounts Murderhorses. It's an apt and earned nickname. Also don't forget your higher ground bonus to hit vs many opponents on foot, too. A cavalier on horseback can be super dangerous even without a charge that turn.
So what do you do when you can't fight from horseback?
1) pick feats that work whether you're mounted or not, so you can always use them. Power Attack chain is a great option, esp for 2h cavaliers. This is the route my seeker cavalier went; he never even picked up Mounted Combat!
2) variant on 1. My 2nd cavalier is a sword/lance and shield TWF combatant. While mounted, I get to dual wield a 2h reach weapon (lance) AND a bashing shield. On foot, that PC still TWF's but with sword and shield, and gains the ability to double up on challenge bonus damage!
Divination spells are designed for situations just like that presented in the OP.
Depending on the context, you might get use out of a 2nd level Augury to provide clues to "who made this burning skeleton"? You should be able to get use out of the 4th level Divination, but RAW IS LAW types might insist there are issues with usimg that spell on events in the past. Regardless, if you can cast (or purchase the spellcasting services for) Commune, you get to play 20 questions worded as being answerable by yes/no.
Marc Radle wrote:
And as I said (and was apparently misunderstood), I was saying Gygax did not come up with the alignment axes that D&D uses; he incorporated those concepts of Good vs Evil and Law vs Chaos from the same non-Gygaxian source from which he took the magic system.
Ten'shun the Tengu wrote:
On a different train of thought, there ARE actual taser devices already available for Pathfinder in the Technology Guide (alien/sci fi tech for your Pathfinder game). For regular denizens of Golarion they require the special Technologist feat to design/repair/recharge, but IIRC they don't require anything special to actually USE. Aside, of course, exotic weapon proficiency to avoid non-proficient penalties on the attack roll.
In my post upthread I had meant to mention something about in-universe historical precedent but I forgot to. So I'm glad others have since brought it up, and I agree completely with them.
When a player comes up with an idea like that mentioned in the OP, the GM has a couple metagame decisions to make. "Do I even want this to a part of my game from now on?" isn't even one of them that I'm mentioning.
Instead, I'm referring to "Has anything like this been invented/done before?" If so, then you have a baseline for figuring out how hard/easy the player's imaginative task should be. However, if the answer is "No, this has never been done before in the history of the campaign setting" then you have a tougher ball of wax. I feel it's important to then ask and answer "why has noone ever done this before...". In all honesty, in a setting like Golarion's that not only spans thousands of recorded years, it features thousands of years of technological stagnation. When a player wants to MacGuyver something up in that kind of context, answering "No, it's just impossible" isn't automatically an unreasonable response. In a context like the Golarion campaign setting, it'd be more reasonable to just apply the Reach metamagic to the Shocking Grasp than reskin a modern taser as a shocking grasp fantasy device.
Of course, in your own invented setting YMMV.
It's one thing to be creative. Trying to have one's character use your real world knowledge of genre-inappropriate topics (especially science/physics in a swords n sorcery setting) is another thing.
With regards to the OP, the player wants to "invent" a taser. What in-universe reasons would a character have to a) be inspired to even try to replicate such a device and b) try to do such a real-world gadget rather than use something "tried and true" like a Reach metamegic effect on the touching grasp?
I like to facilitate creativity, but it's still a roleplaying game. Players are not playing characters that are transplants from 21st century earth (well.. unless they ARE playing exactly that in your campaign...). Be creative by working with the campaign genre rather than against it.
The concept of axes of Good/Evil and Law/Chaos, as used by D&D, also come from Vance's works. This is what I was actually referring to, and the magic system was just an expansion to illustrate how much Gygax actually incorporated rather than invented. I.E. I was rebutting that the real-world philosopher responsible for the alignment grid was Gygax and submitting that more accurately, it was Vance.
You can also use the spell storing armor to store a touch range buff, like perhaps Infernal Healing. Obviously you don't discharge the stored spell on hostiles. Instead you use the armor as a spell storing device, and unleash the spell upon yourself by "striking" yourself. No need to actually hit yourself with a weapon... just spend the standard action to make a touch attack on yourself.
If you bring a character that can't contribute for the given table tier, you're forcing the rest of the players to compensate for your character's lack of ability. Having to carry a PC that can't contribute to success fosters real-world resentment.
For example, if you join a table that had 3 players with your wizard that can't cast spells, you're denying those players the Ezren NPC, for example. If you bring a featless fighter of a fallen paladin to a 6 player table, you're (potentially) denying a seat to a player who'd be playing a more helpful PC.
There's a fine line between "non-optimized" and "gimped" and its precise location lies in the eyes of the beholder... but straight-classed single-digit Int Wizards are an example of one that'll make you look like an ass to defend. As a PFS GM, I'd certainly reserve the right to deny a player from even taking part under authority of having violated the "don't be a jerk" rule. The rules don't let you bring a level 1 to a tier 5-9 adventure... I'd potentially view a character so non-optimized as to not be able to contribute as having no more place at the table than a PC too low level to participate.
That all being said, I too love novel characters. I don't even particularly like optimized characters (examples: my cavalier doesn't have Mounted Combat. My witch doesn't have the Sleep hex. My sorcerer doesn't have Haste. For all the same reason). You can do novel ideas without making a character that can't pull his/her own weight. You can do novel and non-optimized/non-munchkin without being a liability to have around.
Well at risk of sending this thread into tired territory, INT isn't really the best measure of how "smart" you are, anyway. WIS is the stat that allows you to "not do stupid stuff". Conversely, doing "smart stuff" is having applied your Wisdom to find the best course of action to a given situation.
A Wizard can have high INT (learn new information quickly) whilst having WIS as a dump stat (too dumb to remember to pack food and shelter for the scenario mission...).
I kind of like explaining the three kinds of "smarts" in d20 thusly:
When your significant other asks you "Do I look fat in this armor?"
You use INT to determine whether or not she does indeed look fat.
Assuming Zone of Truth doesn't let you know if someone has succeeded or failed against it is there a series of questions you can ask that person that will reveal they succeeded?
You can cast Abadar's Truthtelling instead... it's designed to avoid the conundrum in the first place.
The problem with coming up with a logical trap designed to identifiy a liar is that just because someone makes the save they're not required to avoid telling the truth. Basically what Loren said upthread.
I don't know if the OP is mischaracterizing the situation with his VOs perhaps even stretching the truth.
I also don't know if he's being 100% accurate. I don't see any reason to think the allegation that a RVC needs to be called to task is not true. When I see protestations that such allegations should have been handled privately (especially when made by other VOs), it's hard to not see an unspoken statement of "That can't be the truth of the matter" or "he's One Of Us and I refuse to believe that's what happened!"
I'm sure that there'll be resolution thanks to the OP having made the post. It might not work out in his favor with respect to getting to play 8-00 at the charity event, but I also expect that if the VOs in question actually have been overdue for an attitude adjustment it will now finally happen.
So I don't see any problem at all with the OP having made the thread. The issue will be worked out and those of us chiming in to support or condemn that decision to make the thread made are what threaten to turn this thread ugly.
That is a creative interpretation of the spell description, rather than what the spell description actually says.
The spell description equates making a save with moving to a safe square ("jump" means either an Acrobstics check without a given DC or under one's own willful but unspecified motive power). One cannot make a save without moving on the batlegrid. Commutatively, if one cannot move one cannot save. This is supported by the text explicitly spelling out how creatures pushed into the aoe do not even get to make a ceremonial d20 roll to try to save.
So then does a creature with a fly speed that happens to be on the ground when the pit opens in the 10x10 room still fall into the pit?
Depends on whether the creature is paralyzed or otherwise immobile, of course.
If the fly speed creature is not paralyzed/immobile and it makes its reflex save, a "clear" aplication of Rule Zero is that the current square just became safe. If the save was failed, or the creature is unable to move, then just as obviously Not So Much.
Yeah, you technically may roll the reflex save. But if you're still in the pit, you fall regadless of that result as the save does not allow you to defy gravity.
You also can't argue that the edge of the pit might protrude out ledge into your square suitable for precariously balancing upon because that is directly contradicting the spell description about the edge around the pit.
Ergo, if you don't make it to a safe square, you fall just as automatically as if you had been pushed into the aoe.
It's actually not comparable to Fireball. You can stand inside the aoe of most spells (like Fireball) and still make the save. Create Pit is different in that (both implicitly AND by inference) if you're in the AoE, you automatically suffer the effects of failing. Explicitly, one must make it outside the AoE to make a successful reflex savw.
I've allowed a player to use Profession:Longshoreman to stand in for a Perception check during a scenario that had a scene in a warehouse full of crates to find the plot macguffin. If you stack and move crates all day for your day, you ought to know something about the cataloguing system used in relation to what sorts of cargoes go where...
Having had no small part in the back-and-forth that caused someone to start a FAQ on this topic, I feel entitled/authorized to add some relevant points of interest to the OP:
1) the question is NOT about whether or not paralyzed/immobile targets are denied a reflex save as a matter of routine. the question is only in reference to the Create Pit line of spells because they use the following language:
"Any creature standing in the area where you first conjured the pit must make a Reflex saving throw to jump to safety in the nearest open space."
A successful save is contingent upon moving to a square that is not part of the 10x10 aoe of the spell. And this is necessarily impossible for a paralyzed/immobile target.
2) The spell does explicitly deny any save whatsoever in the context of being pushed into the pit. So the argument that "you always get a save, no matter what" is already moot since the spell's specific rules explicitly say no save is possible under those conditions. The question that (imo) should be in the OP is whether being pushed into the pit allowing no reflex save is insight into the RAI of "make a reflex save to jump to safety to the nearest open space" for when the pit first opens underneath someone who, just like someone who is pushed outside of their own turn, cannot move to a safe square when the reflex save is ordinarily called for.
Since the Create Pit example has its own thread now, I'll conditionally recuse my involvement in this thread on that topic aside from the following:
Yes I am (and always was) on board with paralyzed PCs still getting to make a reflex save. My point in the discussion has always been that despite that "rule of thumb", there are/can be exceptions to that rule. Sometimes you just flat out don't get a save if you can't move and since there are cases like Create Pit enshrined in the rules, the nose of the camel has gotten into the tent. The GM may rule that reflex saves might simpy be disallowed in other contexts that the GM finds to be both comparable and appropriate.
You know, I did actually quote the relevant text linking a successful save with moving to a non-pit square. Why don't I go ahead and quote not just that bit again.. but the entire spell description again:
PRD, Create Pit spell description wrote:
(again, relevant text necessarily linking a successful save with moving at least 1 square on the battlemat is bolded)
Squiggit I guess you and I can disagree all night about whether or not "Any creature standing in the area where you first conjured the pit must make a Reflex saving throw to jump to safety in the nearest open space" means that if movement to the nearest open space is impossible then a successful save is also impossible.
So, how about we look elsewhere in the spell for some clues into RAI? Like, specifically, the last line of the 1st paragraph? A creature that finds itself pushed into the pit gets no save? I'm being accused of improperly inferring into the text, so let's talk about inferrances. Why do you think someone pushed into the pit gets no reflex save? Could it be because they are in the pit aoe and unable at that moment to move, so they automatically fall?
That doesn't even sound a little like being paralyzed inside the pit aoe when it opens in the first place? We're not talking about the inappropriateness of not getting any save at all. The spell already explicitly allows for NO SAVE under certain immobility-like circumstances.
Create pit is just a badly written spell. It still doesn't change the fact that a reflex save, by default, does not require any movement at all. Create pit is an exception (one that is specifically called out), not the rule.
I can agree with everything Jeraa said. However, Create Pit making their excepion opens the door for additional exeptions.
Actually, it does. But hey, your table, your rules. I'm actually pretty big on that. I play "GM, may I?" rather than "Player, may I?"
Uh, for the record despite my philosophical support for "my table; my rules" I'm the one arguing from a literal reading of the RAW here.
Diego Rossi wrote:
Fair questions. And I feel the answers are either implicitly clear, or manifest with basic common sense. In detail:
Jump DC: none given, therefore none needed. The motions in making the save also get you to safety. But if you can't move, well that's why the thread doesn't have an easy answer...
How far CAN you move on the successful save: Minimum distance: explicitly, to outside the AoE. Maximum distance: this is "clearly" leaving that answer to Rule Zero. Too hard to legislate every possible tactical or terrain context.
Making the save provoke an AoO? Spell description doesn't say it does, AND there's no example coming to mind where making any other save provokes, so there's little ground for arguing this would.
Now, in contrast, look at the alternative in saying making a save on this spell even while immobile means you don't fall:
Another thing the spell description explicitly says is that the edge of the pit is sloped dangerously down, to the point of needing future saves even if one is outside the AoE of the pit proper. To say that a paralyzed pc somehow balances precariously on the edge is actually saying that the edge, rather than sloping down like an ant-lion's trap, includes basically flat surfaces protruding out into the aoe of the hole proper. The geometry is impossible, and that's before the issue of the spell description never saying anything of the sort.
No, the save is still possible. The result of the save is what is impossible.
Which of course renders having made the save moot as you fall anyway since you didn't make it out of the aoe as the requisite conditon for making the save in the spell description. Unless you're prepared to argue that making that reflex save enables anti-gravity... not being snarky... just wondering how one actually argues that being in a square with no floor means you don't succumb to gravity.
Sure, if the spell were cast in a 10x10 room I can see a "in this case" ruling where a saving PC jumps onto the wall, and will be subject to subsequent climb checks to avoid falling... but with respect to this thread I can't see a ruling that a paralyzed character manages something akin to this as being reasonable.
PFS does indeed already give a sweet deal to players as-is. Want an obscure magic item? There's always one for sale if you have the gold (and fame).
Want an adamantine weapon? You don't have to go on a gather quest just to get the allegedly rare mineral. There's never any worry about 733t loot weapons not coinciding with your Weapon Focus/Specialization feats. Heck, you don't even have to go on sidequests just to find a buyer who can afford to liquidate loot into currency.
Best of all, the only GM permission you need for wacky magic items is appearing on the PFS legality page.
I think this spell should not be used in this discussion since, even the devs said you had to jump, it would have no affect on the general rule you get a reflex save even when paralyzed.
I'm not arguing with a paralyzed PC getting a reflex save as a general rule. In fact I'm agreeing with it. Paralyzed PC in the aoe of a Fireball or Lightning Bolt? I'm all for luck or one of those other factors upthread explaining a successful reflex save in those kinds of contexts.
Instead I'm saying that the GM is empowered/allowed to impose "this situation only" modifiers to the save, or even potentially rule that "in this case" a save is simply impossible. Create Pit explicitly linking a successful save with grid movement is an extant and canonical example of exactly this for a character that cannot move.
Spell descriptions aren't just fluff. The gold standard in discussing what you can or can't do with a spell is exactly what the spell description says, and nothing more.
The spell says you must "jump" to an open space. Personally I'd be amenable to a character crawling or otherwise traveling via other non-jumping methods, but that's my table. Either way, if you can't physically move you can't move and that's a requirement of making a reflex save for that spell. (Barring some magical, non-somatic teleportation magic available as an immediate action, of course) in the case of Create Pit, if you can't make it to a "safe" square for reasons other than paralysis/immobility you still can't meet the requirements for a successful save even if your PC isn't paralyzed and you roll a nat 20.
PRD: Create Pit, 4th sentence wrote:
"Any creature standing in the area where you first conjured the pit must make a Reflex savings throw to jump to safety to the nearest open space"
(Bolded for emphasis)
Now the spell doesn't give rules to govern, in the event of a successful save, how much of next turn's movement is expended to move the successfully saving character to a new square (unlike other out-of-turn movement like Step-Up and Combat Patrol). But the spell description IS explicit in that in this case a successful reflex save is in fact contigent upon being able to relocate to a non-pit square.
This in turn is a demonstration that circumstances CAN indeed potentially render reflex saves being modified by circumstance or even denied outright. When are these cases? Whenever the GM's judgement says they are.
Something that might work is to switch the PCs to NPCs, and specifically the uber villain team for your ongoing campaign.
The players then make new characters seeking to right the wrongs their former high-level characters (perhaps inadvertently) wrought upon the realm. Some players would love that challenge or even seeing their own work coming to be the epic threat to the world.
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Well up until you hit 9 fame it serves to limit what you can buy. If you want to buy a handy haversack (or anything else 1,500+ that's not on the always available list) your best case scenario is chronicle 5, when you're just about ready to hit level 3. Playing modules will accelerate the chronicle count, but not the XP count. 5 standard chronicles = Level 2 with 2xp, and a fame score of 10 if every mission got both prestige. Throw a module in there, and when you hit level 2.2 your maximum possible fame is only 6.
But that's a quibble. As said, once you get to at least 9 fame then the spending ceiling becomes largely irrelevant. Because then you begin buying things like handy haversacks, and by the time you accumulate more gold for massive purchases you've also accumulated fame and moved your ceiling up for anything you can feasibly afford... unless of course you never spend gold on anything and are trying to save up for a 80,000gp staff as your first purchase...