|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Medium barding it starts to make a difference. Large Kikko is now 3x the old cost, and small fitting kikko is 1.9x the old cost. Large Agile Breastplate is about the same difference. Going heavy, full plate isn't much different: Large is at 3.2x and small fit is 1.8x.
If you're going to go cheese, go gouhda. Compare tiny armor, not small.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll just go ahead and say that I don't see this FAQ as raising the cost. I see it as affirming the way I already calculated it.
Generally speaking, if there are two equally valid ways to interpret a rule, the safest thing to do is to use the more expensive/restrictive interpretation. Then all your surprise rulings are happy surprises. If you choose to do otherwise, your disappointment is on you.
|
|
I'll just go ahead and say that I don't see this FAQ as raising the cost. I see it as affirming the way I already calculated it.
Generally speaking, if there are two equally valid ways to interpret a rule, the safest thing to do is to use the more expensive/restrictive interpretation. Then all your surprise rulings are happy surprises. If you choose to do otherwise, your disappointment is on you.
I don't know, having had how many years of discounted gear vs not having the discounted gear ever? Seems like disappointment at time of FAQ could still be worth all the time beforehand that you benefited from the unclarity.
|
|
That's approximately what I'm thinking right now.Does it make sense to make a Campaign Clarification that the Fitting property can only be placed on armor appropriately sized for the size of your base form, or that of your current companion? I doubt we're going to see weird corner cases of "I got myself an imp familiar for cheaper armor."
This shouldn't adversely affect either of the cases that BNW brings up
Isn't limiting the Fitting property to your current companion punishing players whose animal companions are already "grown up" and large in size?
It forces the Fitting property to be a "tax" item, that must be purchased for an animal companion BEFORE say companion grows up in size.
As well as being very unfair to players with large sized animal companions.
Seeing that the object of the exercise is to be a tax...
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East
|
If you're going to go cheese, go gouhda. Compare tiny armor, not small.
Medium barding it starts to make a difference. Large Kikko is now 3x the old cost, and small fitting kikko is 1.9x the old cost. Large Agile Breastplate is about the same difference. Going heavy, full plate isn't much different: Large is at 3.2x and small fit is 1.8x.
As this exchange began with your comment to my proposed fix, I did the comparison with the fix in place.
I am totally on board with not allowing Fitting on things that start Tiny or smaller.
Venture-Captain, Netherlands
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you're going to go cheese, go gouhda. Compare tiny armor, not small.
Medium barding it starts to make a difference. Large Kikko is now 3x the old cost, and small fitting kikko is 1.9x the old cost. Large Agile Breastplate is about the same difference. Going heavy, full plate isn't much different: Large is at 3.2x and small fit is 1.8x.
There is no H in Gouda.
Our dutch cheese is sophisticated.|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll just go ahead and say that I don't see this FAQ as raising the cost. I see it as affirming the way I already calculated it.
It makes absolutely no sense that a bar of mithral you're going to hammer into Horse armor costs twice as much as mithral you're going to hammer into person armor. No one has even attempted to explain that from a balance or sensible, or ANY position, at all.
At all.
|
|
There is no H in Gouda.
Our dutch cheese is sophisticated.
Given the questionable nature of the cheese involved i didn't want to run afoul of european food labeling laws, so called it Ghouda. Kind of like you have to call it "Froot loops" instead of "fruit loops" because the later implies there's fruit in the sugar.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll just go ahead and say that I don't see this FAQ as raising the cost. I see it as affirming the way I already calculated it.
Generally speaking, if there are two equally valid ways to interpret a rule, the safest thing to do is to use the more expensive/restrictive interpretation. Then all your surprise rulings are happy surprises. If you choose to do otherwise, your disappointment is on you.
Two things:
If this was how we were supposed to price things all along, then there should be no need to touch Fitting. Clearly it was designed with Special Material multiplication (and discounting) in mind.
Second, depending on what size your Companion is, the "more restrictive ruling" was that Special Materials weren't multiplied. This FAQ gives me money back on my Quasit's tiny-sized armor, for example.
I wouldn't equate the two possibilities as "equally valid ways to interpret a rule". One interpretation heavily skewed in the other direction.
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
I'll just go ahead and say that I don't see this FAQ as raising the cost. I see it as affirming the way I already calculated it.
It makes absolutely no sense that a bar of mithral you're going to hammer into Horse armor costs twice as much as mithral you're going to hammer into person armor. No one has even attempted to explain that from a balance or sensible, or ANY position, at all.
At all.
There is a lot of waste involved in crafting horse armor. You just can't do anything with all those mithral shavings left over. :/
*shakes head*
|
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If this was how we were supposed to price things all along, then there should be no need to touch Fitting. Clearly it was designed with Special Material multiplication (and discounting) in mind.
I'm never sure those Player Companions get in-depth analysis.
|
Venture-Captain, Netherlands
|
I'll just go ahead and say that I don't see this FAQ as raising the cost. I see it as affirming the way I already calculated it.
It makes absolutely no sense that a bar of mithral you're going to hammer into Horse armor costs twice as much as mithral you're going to hammer into person armor. No one has even attempted to explain that from a balance or sensible, or ANY position, at all.
At all.
A lot of human sized armor can be made partially to a standard. Chain shirts especially. Certain pieces of plate are a one size fits all. As an armor smith, you can easily have basic pieces ready, and then have to expend less effort to make the person specific pieces.
Horses will need training to tolerate armor. A horse might never get used to certain pieces. (most take pieces on the lower leg just fine, but a lot of them get finniky when it comes to the belly). Also depending on your horse breed, their physical build can very greatly, needing a complete rework of a piece.
Its more or less the difference between pulling a suit of a rack in size M, VS having a suit tailor made.
(real life examples have limited application to fantasy worlds, I know)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If this was how we were supposed to price things all along, then there should be no need to touch Fitting. Clearly it was designed with Special Material multiplication (and discounting) in mind.I'm never sure those Player Companions get in-depth analysis.
It's been admitted that they don't, which is one reason those options are more restricted in PFS.
But assuming this was how Special Materials were always supposed to be priced, where were the people decreeing a nerf back when it first became legal?
|
|
And that cost is already reflected in the X2 you paid on the base price. If blacksmith needs to go through four times as much metal to put that on a horse they should be canned. This gets Absolutely silly once you're at anything other than plate armor. Really? the horse is objecting to HALF of the individual chain links, which have to be thrown away because they touched a horse?
Literally.
If they can only get half the mithral on the horse , he should have enough left over for some human breastplates.
|
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
And that cost is already reflected in the X2 you paid on the base price. If blacksmith needs to go through four times as much metal to put that on a horse they should be canned.
Literally.
If they can only get half the mithral on the horse , he should have enough left over for some human breastplates.
Assuming it's easily reusable.
Iron you can easily rework. People need iron. When's the blacksmith going to use that leftover chunk of mithral if it's even possible? When the next band of PCs rolls through town?
|
Venture-Captain, Netherlands
|
And that cost is already reflected in the X2 you paid on the base price. If blacksmith needs to go through four times as much metal to put that on a horse they should be canned. This gets Absolutely silly once you're at anything other than plate armor. Really? the horse is objecting to HALF of the individual chain links, which have to be thrown away because they touched a horse?
Literally.
If they can only get half the mithral on the horse , he should have enough left over for some human breastplates.
You make a full set of horse armor. Horse decides its not going to tolerate a part of it. Owner of horse then does not want that part. You still make him pay full price because you did spend time making it.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All I know is, I'm fascinated that the developers decided to screw with something that hasn't been a problem in the almost decade since the Core Rulebook was published, yet Alchemists can still solo scenarios and modules with an average build with nary an actual needed nerf in sight.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll just go ahead and say that I don't see this FAQ as raising the cost. I see it as affirming the way I already calculated it.
It makes absolutely no sense that a bar of mithral you're going to hammer into Horse armor costs twice as much as mithral you're going to hammer into person armor. No one has even attempted to explain that from a balance or sensible, or ANY position, at all.
At all.
Guild pricing.
The master craftsmen claim that it's additional material costs, and that special materials require special training, and all sorts of additional consumables to keep the adamantium from corroding, or becoming brittle and useless. But only other master craftsmen know for sure...and anyone with that sort of training is charging the exact same amount.
Whenever someone with less training or certification points out the amount of theoretical savings they could squeeze out of the materials, their friendly guild representative nods, whistles, and casually mentioned that that seems to be the right amount of money to hire a Red Mantis Assassin, and maybe they should think about running the numbers again.
And somehow, no one ever ends up breaking MSRP.
Edit: Or maybe it's Inquisitors of Abadar that work as enforcers? I kind of suspect that the price lists are Abadaran Holy Writ, and anyone who deviates from them is committing blasphemy of the worst kind.
|
|
I don't know, having had how many years of discounted gear vs not having the discounted gear ever? Seems like disappointment at time of FAQ could still be worth all the time beforehand that you benefited from the unclarity.I'll just go ahead and say that I don't see this FAQ as raising the cost. I see it as affirming the way I already calculated it.
Generally speaking, if there are two equally valid ways to interpret a rule, the safest thing to do is to use the more expensive/restrictive interpretation. Then all your surprise rulings are happy surprises. If you choose to do otherwise, your disappointment is on you.
You have just explained why I have never benefited from the big peaks in the stock market. On the other hand, I've never gotten burned in a crash, either.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess I'm late to this party. One question: why was this FAQ necessary?
Because enough people asked.
I don't understand why the devs are changing something that seemed unbroken... did someone get mad at all those huge giants walking around with mithral fullplates?
Because it's not a change. There were two interpretations. Now we know which one to use.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
Any word on the future of fitting armor? Do I go ahead and retrain my armor into tiny fitting barding?
There's no news yet, I wouldn't expect it until after GenCon.
However, I wouldn't count on tiny fitting armor becoming a thing. I suspect leadership will choose to either ban fitting entirely, or allow it only on small+ armor. (I hope the second option is chosen.)
|
I guess I'm late to this party. One question: why was this FAQ necessary?Because enough people asked.
I don't understand why the devs are changing something that seemed unbroken... did someone get mad at all those huge giants walking around with mithral fullplates?Because it's not a change. There were two interpretations. Now we know which one to use.
IIRC, it is sort of a change considering the vast majority of statted items (with very few, if any, outliers) were priced the opposite way.
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Errors like that are not uncommon, unfortunately. Look at all the "Spring Attack plus Vital Strike" tactics that have slipped into print over the years. And that's unambiguously incorrect, where this had multiple possible interpretations.
It's possible that even some developers weren't aware of this, since it's such a niche case. And if they were, it might have slipped by in the details of NPC design.
I'll just go ahead and say that I don't see this FAQ as raising the cost. I see it as affirming the way I already calculated it.
It makes absolutely no sense that a bar of mithral you're going to hammer into Horse armor costs twice as much as mithral you're going to hammer into person armor. No one has even attempted to explain that from a balance or sensible, or ANY position, at all.
At all.
Guild pricing.
The master craftsmen claim that it's additional material costs, and that special materials require special training, and all sorts of additional consumables to keep the adamantium from corroding, or becoming brittle and useless. But only other master craftsmen know for sure...and anyone with that sort of training is charging the exact same amount.
Whenever someone with less training or certification points out the amount of theoretical savings they could squeeze out of the materials, their friendly guild representative nods, whistles, and casually mentioned that that seems to be the right amount of money to hire a Red Mantis Assassin, and maybe they should think about running the numbers again.
And somehow, no one ever ends up breaking MSRP.
Nope it actually clearly takes more. Otherwise a character with the right skills could mine, smelt, and craft the mithril for the armor and it still cost 1/3 the MSRP.
|
|
IIRC, it is sort of a change considering the vast majority of statted items (with very few, if any, outliers) were priced the opposite way.I guess I'm late to this party. One question: why was this FAQ necessary?Because enough people asked.
I don't understand why the devs are changing something that seemed unbroken... did someone get mad at all those huge giants walking around with mithral fullplates?Because it's not a change. There were two interpretations. Now we know which one to use.
several posters have pointed out published items that are done the "wrong" way - priced incorrectly (by the FAQ).
What items in published sources (prior to this FAQ) were priced CORRECTLY? so that we can have some examples of the "right way" to do this.
|
|
Ive pointed out before, and I will point it out again, any time someone says this makes sence due to "more material' being used or some such nonsense.
A large adamantine [light edged] weapon costs significantly more than a medium [one handed edged] weapon, but from a rules standpoint are equivalent weapons with the same statistics, with only the suitability of their grip being a concern. Adamantine pricing, based on small/medium pricing and the above comparison has nothing to do with the size of the item and everything to do with a really weird desire to punish those with the need or desire to use large sized equipment.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ive pointed out before, and I will point it out again, any time someone says this makes sence due to "more material' being used or some such nonsense.
A large adamantine [light edged] weapon costs significantly more than a medium [one handed edged] weapon, but from a rules standpoint are equivalent weapons with the same statistics, with only the suitability of their grip being a concern. Adamantine pricing, based on small/medium pricing and the above comparison has nothing to do with the size of the item and everything to do with a really weird desire to punish those with the need or desire to use large sized equipment.
and yet small sized equipment is not discounted in price right?
I mean, my (small) Cold Iron Bastard Sword costs the same thing as a Human sized (medium) Cold Iron Bastard Sword - even though it weighs half as much...
and come to think of it, why do I have to pay the same cost for trail rations - even though my (small) trail rations weigh 1/4 what that human pays for his? I'm paying four times the price to eat! I figure that in the back of the bakery there is a machine that takes those Iron Ration Biscuits and splits them into 4 parts, which they then sell to smaller customers - and for this "service" we halflings & gnomes are charged a "service fee" of 300%! It's outrageous!
It's SIZE discrimination I tell you! We need to protest! Organize! Picket the merchants shops! Block traffic in the streets! Put up H.A.L.T stations! (H.A.L.T. aka. Halfling Army of Liberation Tollbooth)...