So now that 'Brawling' is the worst armor enchant ever . . .


Advice

151 to 200 of 223 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
A Blood Arcanist with the Orc Bloodline and School Understanding (Evocation) that specializes in the Battering Blast spell can kill anything that's not protected by an Anti-Magic Field, Spellbane, or Mage's Disjunction. It bypasses all DR and Resistances (as it's Force Damage), and casting two of them in a round, you deal upwards of 572 points of damage on average.

Me like

Me want build

Me want blow stuf up!

(I'd like to see this, as I might like to build this)

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dracoknight wrote:
Sundakan wrote:

All this talk about Fate's Favored and nobody stopped to think that maybe it's the trait that's the problem?

"10k is too cheap for the Jingasa because a trait can double its AC bonus!"

Lolwut?

I think this was said over at the other thread about the Jingasa, it seems like this thread is stuff calculating prices for magic items.

So yeah, all of this arguing over a trait that basically double a lot of the smaller luck bonuses in the game... and yet they nerf a item instead...

Honestly, i am starting to lose faith in Paizos decision making.

only starting?

oh honey.

also whoever said AC 36 is too high; LOL.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.
9mm wrote:
whoever said AC 36 is too high; LOL.

The game rules?

High Attack at 7th level is 13

20+13 = 33 so AC 33 or 36 are both "crit fishing" which isn't the design of the game.

It is the design of the optimized character.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
James Risner wrote:
20+13 = 33 so AC 33 or 36 are both "crit fishing" which isn't the design of the game.

Citation? The monster averages do not say that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And was the Jingasa the guilties thing for that AC? because without it AC 34 is still beyond the number you are giving.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Letric wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

==Aelryinth

It's not the logic, I just fail too see how it can be OP if anyone (well, almost) can get access to it.

Investing in UMD for a martial class it's rarely a downside, UMD has to be one of the most powerful skills ever.
And honestly, what else is the BSF gonna get? Swim? Touch of the Sea. Climb? Spider Climb, Levitate, Fly.

There aren't really many skills useful for the figher. If he wants a really high Will Save he needs at least CHA13 for Improved Bravery or he can't chose an Archetype that gives up weapon training to take Armed Bravery.

My point is, that in this case not spell list classes have to pay more to use the item that spell list classes can get access to in form of Wands, for a cheaper way.
Item that only last 1 minutes per day, while Wands guy can use it up to 50 times.

If you think the item is broken, maybe the problem is not the item, but the spell it's emulating.

UMD definitely IS a powerful skill. However, it is not a cheap skill, esp for martials, and most esp for fighters.

The investment of skill ranks, trait and probably skill focus, + possible Cha, is a Hefty investment. On top of that, you now have to invest gold in magic items trying to replicate what a caster is doing for free.

You are also comparing the price of the single cheapest consumable you can use, a wand, against a permanent item, and ignoring how long it's going to take you to use that wand successfully every time.

The OLD item is too cheap for what it did. That is without ANY doubt. It's why PFS banned it, it was that blatant.

No benefit or effect looks pricey all by itself. But when you start accumulating lots of little bonuses, they suddenly become big bonuses.

The NEW item? Might be overpriced. I'm not commenting on that. If a permanent item is priced at 12k, it should be in the 2-3k range. But just based on other items, the old item should have been 18-19k, by my estimations. 3-4k is actually right on line.

As someone pointed out, the old Bracer was basically equal to Greater Bracers for an archery. So, are you going to pay 4k and Weapon Spec, or 25k and Improved Critical to basically get the same effect? And at a minimum of 4 levels sooner, ignoring gold reqs.

That's what you have to look at.

Small little bonuses all add up. Some of those you have to keep a very close eye on for balance purposes.

Looking at them by themselves? No, not an issue. Stick them in the greater picture and weigh them against other options? Starts to show.

==Aelryinth

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nicos wrote:
And was the Jingasa the guilties thing for that AC? because without it AC 34 is still beyond the number you are giving.

Meh, he's using not just a shield, but a TOWER SHIELD.

reduce that 34 to a 28. How many serious shield users are there? Although Unfettered shield will definitely see the buckler users going up.

==Aelryinth

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

TriOmegaZero wrote:
James Risner wrote:
20+13 = 33 so AC 33 or 36 are both "crit fishing" which isn't the design of the game.
Citation? The monster averages do not say that.

CR 7 High Attack = 13

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
James Risner wrote:
CR 7 High Attack = 13

That says that the average creature has a +13 bonus to hit. Other monsters might have higher or lower bonuses in exchange for changes in other stats.

It says nothing about what the design goal is for a PC's total AC.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Aelryinth wrote:
Meh, he's using not just a shield, but a TOWER SHIELD.

-2 isn't that much of a penalty when talking using CMB, because bonuses to CMB are easier than melee. Sunder allows damage to them when CMB, so good times.

AC 34 without Jingasa, AC 32 with just a shield. So we are back to average monster needs a 3 to hit.

What is an Unfettered Shield?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
James Risner wrote:
CR 7 High Attack = 13

That says that the average creature has a +13 bonus to hit. Other monsters might have higher or lower bonuses in exchange for changes in other stats.

It says nothing about what the design goal is for a PC's total AC.

Also, only looking at the attack bonus of equal CR creatures is a terrible idea, there you are talking about fairly easy encounters/. You want to be looking up to CR+3 at least. It also says nothing about the rest of the character, AC becomes increasingly irrelevant in the face of things targeting touch AC, saves and CMD.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

James Risner wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:
Meh, he's using not just a shield, but a TOWER SHIELD.

-2 isn't that much of a penalty when talking using CMB, because bonuses to CMB are easier than melee. Sunder allows damage to them when CMB, so good times.

AC 34 without Jingasa, AC 32 with just a shield. So we are back to average monster needs a 3 to hit.

What is an Unfettered Shield?

Unfettered shield is the feat that allows you to wear a buckler while doing anything else.

Crane Wing? Wear a buckler, you're fine.
TWF? Wear th buckler, you're fine.
Greatswording? Wear the buckler, you're fine.
Spell combat magus? Wear the buckler, you're fine.

Yes, for the price of 1-2 feats, you get shield AC and whatever superior fighting style you want. No penalties. If you have armor training (i.e. fighter), you can get it as soon as level 4.

==Aelryinth


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:
Entryhazard wrote:
Why was wrong to just raise The price of The jingasa to 10-11k and call it a day?

With the Brawling armor enchantment that's what they did... just raised the price.

You'll notice that people are whining about that too... remember, the supposed topic of this thread?

That one is because it went from something you could afford lv4 to something you could maybe afford at lv9, if you decid you don't need AC. And it should be priced a little lower than the AoMF because it's only to unarmed strikes and not natural attacks too. Making it a +2 would have put the price at 9000 for it, obtainable at lv6.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
It says nothing about what the design goal is for a PC's total AC.

I've seen the design goal written as "an 11 on the d20 should hit 50% of the time vs PC of the level of the CR".

So a 7th level monster with +13 high attack, when you add the 11, is AC 24. So 7th level adventures should be designed around PC with AC 24 on average.

Some PC will be better, but I don't think they intended 12 AC points better.

Anyway here is Mark saying "this is an example of overall math creep without any individual item being actually overpowered"

I translate that to "The Jingasa is fine by itself, but when stacked onto a character with everything else, it is too much".

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
James Risner wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
It says nothing about what the design goal is for a PC's total AC.
I've seen the design goal written as "an 11 on the d20 should hit 50% of the time vs PC of the level of the CR".

Where? That is what I asked for before.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nicos wrote:
And was the Jingasa the guilties thing for that AC? because without it AC 34 is still beyond the number you are giving.

How often do you play a tower-shield wearing fighter with two AC traits and 98.5% of your wealth soaked into AC increasing items?

How often do you even use a tower-shield, or a shield at all?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:
Unfettered shield is the feat that allows you to wear a buckler while doing anything else.

You mean Unhindering Shield.


Having done this exercise in another thread, in most APs at 1/3 to 2/3 of enemies are less tha average CR, only a small number 0-5 are higher. In the thread a selection of 8 or 9 books were checked.

Scenarios are slightly weighted accounting for generally fewer encounters per day and starting completely fresh - as well as larger party numbers.

You don't need to build your characters to take on CR +3 unless you are playing home brew - in which case the Gm is probably scaling to your power anyway - so upping your stats just ups the difficulty for everyone.

I'm firmly behind James' maths on this one.


James Risner wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
James Risner wrote:
20+13 = 33 so AC 33 or 36 are both "crit fishing" which isn't the design of the game.
Citation? The monster averages do not say that.
CR 7 High Attack = 13

Course that is before feats and magic items+buffs. No doubt one can assume +3 or 4 due to MW weapon WF and perhaps a potion or ally buff

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

CBDunkerson wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:
Unfettered shield is the feat that allows you to wear a buckler while doing anything else.
You mean Unhindering Shield.

(whistles)


But the expected AC for an average person at level 7 is 15+1.5lv (7) = 25. So 24 is below expected.

Tank AC by 7 is 29.
Anymore insures when you fight over your CR (and if you aren't fighting easy battles you will): you still be tanking.

Liberty's Edge

Aelryinth wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:
Unfettered shield is the feat that allows you to wear a buckler while doing anything else.
You mean Unhindering Shield.
(whistles)

*cough*


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Grue wrote:
For instance a Mnemonic Vestment is a 5k item. Just how many of these things are spontaneous casters buying to gain access to unknown spells on their caster lists? At what point does it become viable for a PC to budget buying a wardrobe of Mnemonic Vestments considering they have some basic resistances & enhancements to buy as well? 12th or 13th? Most campaigns are in their endgames by that point (and it's far from an 'I win' button). If a lower level PC wanted to spend his resources this direction and sacrifice basic coverage in other areas (and still have to use a spell slot to tap into it)...more power to them. But with the change it makes me wonder if paizo folks grok how the system comes together within a campaign.

I'd like to actually defend Paizo here.

You ARE wrong. At least check published adventure paths and you will (surprise!) find that a lot of campaign go up to 17th level and even after that level they have ideas/recommendations to continue up to 20th level. Game is designed to be played from 1st level till 20th level, it's a FACT. So stop forcing your way of thinking - if you prefer to stop playing at 13th level - fine, but please take into consideration that a lot of us want to play up to 20th level and I applaud Paizo that they've nerfed Mnemonic Vestment.

At 15+ level sorcerer with old item (before nerf) basically could become wizard with +2 slots at each level and ability to cast them without any preparation. Mutliple times per day.

I don't want this happening in my games and I'm happy that this broken item was nerfed.

Same for bracers of falcon's aim and jingasa.

And for those of you that don't like Big 6 items - just buy and read Pathfinder Unchained. You will find all rules you will ever need to get rid of those items like belt of strength or cloak of resistance.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
It says nothing about what the design goal is for a PC's total AC.

I've seen the design goal written as "an 11 on the d20 should hit 50% of the time vs PC of the level of the CR".

So a 7th level monster with +13 high attack, when you add the 11, is AC 24. So 7th level adventures should be designed around PC with AC 24 on average.

Some PC will be better, but I don't think they intended 12 AC points better.

Anyway here is Mark saying "this is an example of overall math creep without any individual item being actually overpowered"

I translate that to "The Jingasa is fine by itself, but when stacked onto a character with everything else, it is too much".

More likely to translate it into when used with a trait it becomes too much.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cavall wrote:
More likely to translate it into when used with a trait it becomes too much.

Actually, I translate it into "3.5 had Dusty Rose, Ring and Amulet of Natural Armor, we can't remove those but we definitely can't add new stacking things."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mrakvampire wrote:
Grue wrote:
For instance a Mnemonic Vestment is a 5k item. Just how many of these things are spontaneous casters buying to gain access to unknown spells on their caster lists? At what point does it become viable for a PC to budget buying a wardrobe of Mnemonic Vestments considering they have some basic resistances & enhancements to buy as well? 12th or 13th? Most campaigns are in their endgames by that point (and it's far from an 'I win' button). If a lower level PC wanted to spend his resources this direction and sacrifice basic coverage in other areas (and still have to use a spell slot to tap into it)...more power to them. But with the change it makes me wonder if paizo folks grok how the system comes together within a campaign.

I'd like to actually defend Paizo here.

You ARE wrong. At least check published adventure paths and you will (surprise!) find that a lot of campaign go up to 17th level and even after that level they have ideas/recommendations to continue up to 20th level. Game is designed to be played from 1st level till 20th level, it's a FACT. So stop forcing your way of thinking - if you prefer to stop playing at 13th level - fine, but please take into consideration that a lot of us want to play up to 20th level and I applaud Paizo that they've nerfed Mnemonic Vestment.

At 15+ level sorcerer with old item (before nerf) basically could become wizard with +2 slots at each level and ability to cast them without any preparation. Mutliple times per day.

I don't want this happening in my games and I'm happy that this broken item was nerfed.

Same for bracers of falcon's aim and jingasa.

And for those of you that don't like Big 6 items - just buy and read Pathfinder Unchained. You will find all rules you will ever need to get rid of those items like belt of strength or cloak of resistance.

I agree on the Adventure Path argument. I disagree on the Big 6 and Items argument.

Tangential Explanation (Caution: Wall of Text):
Ignore these alternate rules for a minute, as we do not have access to them for whatever reason (maybe the GM passed a "No Unchained" rule over the table). The items that got nerfed (not saying it wasn't necessary to nerf some of them, but that it was overkill) were presumably because they are being taken a lot across other characters, and/or were overpowered due to things outside of what said items could normally do (at least in the case of the Jingasa). Since these items have been significantly reduced in effectiveness (and not reduced in their value), the odds of purchasing said items are treated likewise. This is what I'd call a result of an inverse singular inflation (that is, the cost of the item is still the same, but the non-commercial, or practical value of that item is reduced).

Another way to look at this is by viewing this as a Corollary Stock Comparison, with the Big 6 being one brand of Stock, and the other Magic Items being another brand of Stock. Each Stock has two sets of values, one is commerical (GP costs), and one is practical (The effect and purpose of the items in question). In theory, the commercial and practical values of these two stocks are synonymous; that is, if one's commercial value is high, its practical value is likewise also high. Unlike typical stock, however, another important factor is that these values are subjective based on the consumer's wants and needs, as determined by the rules set in PFS or Home Games.

Let's take a single consumer base for a moment. If we weighed the value of purchasing, say, a Big 6 item, in comparison to purchasing any other item for that consumer base, the practical value of purchasing the other items in comparison to the Big 6 has taken a large hit for that consumer base, and therefore the desire to purchase these other magical items suffers a similar fate due to following the theory of the ideal consumer. In other words, for an ideal consumer in regards to that consumer base, it is more tactically sound to purchase or improve upon a Big 6 item now than it was to purchase some other magical item, because the practical value of a miscellaneous magic item went down, but its commercial value remains the same (and therefore makes its combined value less than what it actually should be). Any consumer who wants his currency as high as possible would back the more stable and more valued stock, which is the Big 6, and not the less stable, less valued Miscellaneous Item stock.

Now, let's throw in the alternate rules (which effectively take the Big 6 Stock and abolishes it completely, sort of like a nation-wide Medicare solution-thing). Although this makes spending money on the Big 6 impossible, and their benefits instead granted to all relevant consumers through a specific prestige or loyalty system (as if viewed like a progressional graph), this actually properly demonstrates a factor of inverse singular inflation, and doesn't diminish the factor that the value of gold has dropped in relation to purchasing these other magic items, because the desire to purchase said other magical items has been significantly reduced, as evidenced by their lack of practical value. The thing is, since these miscellaneous items are the only stock, and not just the Big 6, this means the value of currency (gold pieces) itself drops. I originally made a post saying that the value of Gold becomes worthless. I'm incorrect when I say this. What I should've said, was that the value of Gold becomes worth less, which is a significant difference.

You also don't fully understand the ramifications of these alternate rules, because now I'm going to expand the second part of this analogous argument. So let's postulate for a minute that there is actually a second set of currency, called Experience Points, something that isn't spent, but is accumulated to show the prestige and overall skill of the consumer, and reaching certain amounts of Experience Points gives you certain benefits.

(Time to dial back the analogies, as the argument is getting a little convoluted and difficult to follow. Anyway...)

Let's re-implement the alternate rules. They state that you receive a set amount of the Big 6 benefits once you acquire certain amounts of Experience Points (i.e. whenever you gain a character level), as evidenced by the table. This means that the value and availability of the Big 6 is tied to Experience Points, not Gold. That is in addition to the other values that Experience Points grant you (such as an increased character level, added features, improved features, higher statistical benefits, etc). In other words, all these alternate rules do is lock the benefits of the Big 6 behind a "currency," Experience Points, separate from one that is acquired and then spent, which is Gold Pieces. Now do you understand what that all entails?

TL;DR: The alternate rules only makes Experience Points even more valuable than what they already were, and makes Gold Pieces even less valuable than what they already were, because the Big 6, which is now categorically more valuable than it was before the errata, is now locked behind a resource separate from Gold Pieces (which is Experience Points). Implementing the alternate rules actually depreciates the value of the Gold Piece, and instead appreciates the value of the Experience Point; this makes players value the Gold Piece less, and value the Experience Point more.

Whether that's better or worse for the game (or your table) is debatable, and subjective. However, those are the objective facts in relation to the errata's overall impact of the game.


James Risner wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
A Blood Arcanist with the Orc Bloodline and School Understanding (Evocation) that specializes in the Battering Blast spell can kill anything that's not protected by an Anti-Magic Field, Spellbane, or Mage's Disjunction. It bypasses all DR and Resistances (as it's Force Damage), and casting two of them in a round, you deal upwards of 572 points of damage on average.

Me like

Me want build

Me want blow stuf up!

(I'd like to see this, as I might like to build this)

psst

Did you get that thing I sent ya?


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
A Blood Arcanist with the Orc Bloodline and School Understanding (Evocation) that specializes in the Battering Blast spell can kill anything that's not protected by an Anti-Magic Field, Spellbane, or Mage's Disjunction. It bypasses all DR and Resistances (as it's Force Damage), and casting two of them in a round, you deal upwards of 572 points of damage on average.

Me like

Me want build

Me want blow stuf up!

(I'd like to see this, as I might like to build this)

psst

Did you get that thing I sent ya?

...did you?

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Yes I did

Thx


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:

I translate that to "The Jingasa is fine by itself, but when stacked onto a character with everything else, it is too much".

Can I say the same thing for any item to the list that adds up to 36 and ask for a ban/ultranerf?

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Entryhazard wrote:
James Risner wrote:

I translate that to "The Jingasa is fine by itself, but when stacked onto a character with everything else, it is too much".

Can I say the same thing for any item to the list that adds up to 36 and ask for a ban/ultranerf?

I think you are missing my point.

To answer you, yes if the item didn't exist in 3.5 SRD.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So why not cut out the middle man and just ban everything that wasn't in 3.5?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I thought that the idea of ultimate equipment was to introduce new items.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Sundakan wrote:
So why not cut out the middle man and just ban everything that wasn't in 3.5?

I'm not sure if you are being serious (as not understanding why this is different).

Or if you are just being snarky for fun.

Or something else?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
Sundakan wrote:
So why not cut out the middle man and just ban everything that wasn't in 3.5?

I'm not sure if you are being serious (as not understanding why this is different).

Or if you are just being snarky for fun.

Or something else?

Your reasoning is very weird. You get an AC of 35 using other means and the items that rise it to 36 is the problem?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nicos wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Sundakan wrote:
So why not cut out the middle man and just ban everything that wasn't in 3.5?

I'm not sure if you are being serious (as not understanding why this is different).

Or if you are just being snarky for fun.

Or something else?

Your reasoning is very weird. You get an AC of 35 using other means and the items that rise it to 36 is the problem?

Exactly. Because that's what the PDT said, and the PDT is always right.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Nicos wrote:
Your reasoning is very weird. You get an AC of 35 using other means and the items that rise it to 36 is the problem?

AC 34 without the Jingasa is Tower shield.

The thing is a lot of people won't buy the Tower Shield, but most if not all would buy the Jingasa.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

sarcasm on the internet is like winking at a blind guy. Completely effective!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Your reasoning is very weird. You get an AC of 35 using other means and the items that rise it to 36 is the problem?

AC 34 without the Jingasa is Tower shield.

The thing is a lot of people won't buy the Tower Shield, but most if not all would buy the Jingasa.

Because one sucked and the other didn't.

I'm not sure what you're getting at, at all.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

If the problem is that every character is buying the same thing in the same slot, then make more than one thing that people want to put in that slot.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The monster target stats table is kind of bogus.

A level 8 orc fighter is CR 7. As a PC classsed NPC (at that CR for an orc he's pretty elite and should have a PC class) he uses the elite array. That gives him base stats of 19 str 13 dex 14 con 8 int 10 wis 6 cha according to CRB table 14-6. He has 8 hit dice and therefore gets 2 stat increases. They obviously go in strength and dex pushing them to 20 and 14 respectively.

By CRB table 15-9 he should have 3k of weapons, 2.5k of protection, 1k of other permanent magic items, and 800 of consumables. That comes to a +1 weapon and some change, a suit of +1 fullplate, a cloak of resistance +1, and some consumables.

He has the most boring feats possible. Stuff like weapon focus, toughness, dodge, weapon specialization, iron will, power attack, furious focus, and greater weapon focus,

His attack is +17. His AC is 23. Two full CR too high by the table. His HP and saves are low for his CR, but are you really going to claim that the most hackneyed zero HD monster race with the most boring class with the most boring feats is not a valid opponent?

I would put forth rather that the orc (or other no HD monster with class levels) is a more valid opponent than any monster with HD because his HD rise at a 1:1 ratio with CR unlike all monstrous HD which aren't even linear, with gamebreaking effects on save DCs and combat maneuvers. And don't even get me started on size modifiers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
If the problem is that every character is buying the same thing in the same slot, then make more than one thing that people want to put in that slot.

This.

Let's be honest 99% of what goes in the head slot is not worth taking. Even if the Jingasa didn't exist you would see most people just not taking head slot items is that really better for item diversity? If you wanted more diversity just include more situationaly valuable items that would result in people actually wanting those items.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nicos wrote:
I thought that the idea of ultimate equipment was to introduce new items.

You mean like Mithril Waffle Irons? Certainly not a case of 'we need to pad this last few inches of the page.'


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
If the problem is that every character is buying the same thing in the same slot, then make more than one thing that people want to put in that slot.

Which brings the spinning back around to the "big 6 items".

Which will lead to "use ABP"

Which will get interrupted by a rant.

The writing of this show is getting really predictable.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
If the problem is that every character is buying the same thing in the same slot, then make more than one thing that people want to put in that slot.

If you have 99 items for a slot and among those items you suddenly realize that there is only 1 item that is so good that everybody uses it, then it's unwise to revise other 98 items or introduce new items.

It's much more easier to fix only one problematic item.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The fundamental problem is "don't compare new items to old items that are themselves mispriced."

The AMF is still overpriced by a factor of at least 2 (arguably 4 because weapons are slotless and amulets aren't) for unarmed strikes.

Brawling armor's fair price is somewhere between 4k and 8k flat. As a bonus equivalent enchantment a +2 might have been excused, but a +3 is absolutely ridiculous. Even a +1 equivalent bonus becomes overpriced when you start enhancing your armor for the purpose of keeping you from getting killed.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mrakvampire wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
If the problem is that every character is buying the same thing in the same slot, then make more than one thing that people want to put in that slot.

If you have 99 items for a slot and among those items you suddenly realize that there is only 1 item that is so good that everybody uses it, then it's unwise to revise other 98 items or introduce new items.

It's much more easier to fix only one problematic item.

If this statement was true then yes. But on the other hand you have 98 items not worth wasting gold on and 1 item that is worth it for a slot but you always have 6 excellent choices that literally must exist because you can't maintain game balance without them. Nerfing the 1 worth while item will not result in people spending money on the 98 garbage ones, people will use that gold on a different item that is worth buying either from the 6 necessary items or the 1-3 items that are decent in any given slot which you were already planning on getting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Atarlost wrote:

The fundamental problem is "don't compare new items to old items that are themselves mispriced."

The AMF is still overpriced by a factor of at least 2 (arguably 4 because weapons are slotless and amulets aren't) for unarmed strikes.

Brawling armor's fair price is somewhere between 4k and 8k flat. As a bonus equivalent enchantment a +2 might have been excused, but a +3 is absolutely ridiculous. Even a +1 equivalent bonus becomes overpriced when you start enhancing your armor for the purpose of keeping you from getting killed.

In fairness the comparison for how much brawling should cost was probably measured against the gloves of dueling of course it does still ignore the fact that you need to buy armor upgrades afterwards if you intend to not die which makes it notably worse and as such pretty much unusable to anyone who has both of those as an option.


gnomersy wrote:


If this statement was true then yes. But on the other hand you have 98 items not worth wasting gold on and 1 item that is worth it for a slot but you always have 6 excellent choices that literally must exist because you can't maintain game balance without them. Nerfing the 1 worth while item will not result in people spending money on the 98 garbage ones, people will use that gold on a different item that is worth buying either from the 6 necessary items or the 1-3 items that are decent in any given slot which you were already planning on getting.

Just. Use. Pathfinder. Unchained.

There are several options there to fix Big 6 items issue.
Paizo already created for you all rules that you can probably need, but no, I don't want to use them, I want to complain about Big 6 items again and again and again.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Mrakvampire wrote:


Just. Use. Pathfinder. Unchained.

There are several options there to fix Big 6 items issue.
Paizo already created for you all rules that you can probably need, but no, I don't want to use them, I want to complain about Big 6 items again and again and again.

That seems pretty similar to just saying 'don't use the armor/bracers/jingasa if you think they're broken!'. Which, given your other posts, doesn't seem like an answer you'd have approved of.

I guess I just don't understand how we can laud Paizo for removing mandatory magic items in one breath and in the next try to shout down people who complain about mandatory magic items. Just a slightly different (and even more problematic) mandatory magic item.

151 to 200 of 223 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / So now that 'Brawling' is the worst armor enchant ever . . . All Messageboards