|
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's clear to me that the rules as intended at creation are no longer the rules as they want them to be now, and since they can't just make a PF 2.0 they will slowly errata/FAQ stuff that no longer fits their current vision.
Like I'd no longer be surprised if you saw extra rage power and extra revelation get removed from their books because the current view regrets having those exist.
Like I used to not believe they wanted to destroy everything a player likes, but recently I'm seeing the trend that the answer to everything is make this unintuitive, complicated, and worse off for players.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's clear to me that the rules as intended at creation are no longer the rules as they want them to be now, and since they can't just make a PF 2.0 they will slowly errata/FAQ stuff that no longer fits their current vision.
Like I'd no longer be surprised if you saw extra rage power and extra revelation get removed from their books because the current view regrets having those exist.
Like I used to not believe they wanted to destroy everything a player likes, but recently I'm seeing the trend that the answer to everything is make this unintuitive, complicated, and worse off for players.
Holy drama Batman.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I support the petition.
I'm so tired of the nerfs.
That hurts. I just like hanging around you people.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Holy drama Batman.It's clear to me that the rules as intended at creation are no longer the rules as they want them to be now, and since they can't just make a PF 2.0 they will slowly errata/FAQ stuff that no longer fits their current vision.
Like I'd no longer be surprised if you saw extra rage power and extra revelation get removed from their books because the current view regrets having those exist.
Like I used to not believe they wanted to destroy everything a player likes, but recently I'm seeing the trend that the answer to everything is make this unintuitive, complicated, and worse off for players.
Look at the string of recent FAQs. Answers that are not intuitive, go against how they probably played the game. And add needless complications for no benefit.
That hurts. I just like hanging around you people.I support the petition.
I'm so tired of the nerfs.
You aren't nerf bat from around here! The usual guy like to drop nukes from orbit until anything even remotely related to the item being adjusted is useless for generations to come...
Bigger shapes need more material. This FAQ is reasonable to me.Yep, so it's totally understandable that people will make tiny armor with fitting to save a bunch of cash by using much less material and using magic to size it to you. Do you think the PDT intended to make buying mithril/adamantine armor cheaper for the average character?
1) Doing that in a home game means that you have to get the GM to ok both of the resizing enchants and that he/she is ok with you even doing that in their game. If they are then your fine.
2) In a home game a group is free to ignore any FAQ they agree does not work in their games. So in that case your fine
3) In PFS this has already been stated as being under examination. I can bet you dollars to donuts they are going to ban the resizing enchants from Society play.
Honestly the only problem I see here are the enchantments that allow resizing.
Could the special materials use a little going over to standardize it more. Sure. But the answer they gave seems in line with the intent of the cost increases.
And if your entire character playability and your capability to play the entire game hinges on the cost of your special material armor, well I don't know what to say.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bigger shapes need more material. This FAQ is reasonable to me.Yep, so it's totally understandable that people will make tiny armor with fitting to save a bunch of cash by using much less material and using magic to size it to you. Do you think the PDT intended to make buying mithril/adamantine armor cheaper for the average character?1) Doing that in a home game means that you have to get the GM to ok both of the resizing enchants and that he/she is ok with you even doing that in their game. If they are then your fine.
2) In PFS this has already been stated as being under examination. I can bet you dollars to donuts they are going to ban the resizing enchants from Society play.
Honestly the only problem I see here are the enchantments that allow resizing.
#1 I assume the DM is going to follow the rules unless he's already introduced house-rules. If the resizing enchant was fine before this FAQ, I'd expect to to work the same after it.
And to the enchant, it worked perfectly fine with the way almost everyone knew/expected the rules to work. When someone starts mucking around with the accepted norm, don't blame innocent bystanders that caused no problems until someone knocked over the apple cart on top of it...
You know doughnuts cost about a dollar these days right?
Don't worry, PFS can FAQ that they do again! ;)
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which wouldn't have been an issue if people weren't immediately like "fine then we will loophole with resizing"
Which makes them close the loophole. Which makes people look for more.
Honestly it's like 50 shades of Golarion
Well, the fact that there are so many loopholes to this points to the idea that we've got a "always at war with east asia" situation going on here.
And to the enchant, it worked perfectly fine with the way almost everyone knew/expected the rules to work. When someone starts mucking around with the accepted norm, don't blame innocent bystanders that caused no problems until someone knocked over the apple cart on top of it...
Even without the new FAQ the enchants were still a way to cheap out and get a huge discount on weapons and armor made from special materials by getting Tiny armor made and then having it resize.
An in 38 years of gaming I have never met any GM that did not have SOME house rules. Never.
You know doughnuts cost about a dollar these days right?
Just a dollar where your at? I need to move there.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which wouldn't have been an issue if people weren't immediately like "fine then we will loophole with resizing"
Which makes them close the loophole. Which makes people look for more.
Honestly it's like 50 shades of Golarion
It's almost like it would have been a WHOLE lot less effort [and more internally consistent] to keep the rules the way they were... Don't blame the people that point out obvious flaws in a new ruling for noticing something that's clearly off. It took about 2 seconds for posters to point out fitting so didn't the people making the FAQ take it into account? If they didn't it's a whole other issue and if they did, why not mention size altering magic?
And to the enchant, it worked perfectly fine with the way almost everyone knew/expected the rules to work. When someone starts mucking around with the accepted norm, don't blame innocent bystanders that caused no problems until someone knocked over the apple cart on top of it...Even without the new FAQ the enchants were still a way to cheap out and get a huge discount on weapons and armor made from special materials by getting Tiny armor made and then having it resize.
An in 38 years of gaming I have never met any GM that did not have SOME house rules. Never.
What savings were there before the FAQ? Before the FAQ, there was a 0% price reduction on special materials because of fitting. All the savings were on the mundane side.
Secondly, I am quite aware that houserules exist: I just expect them made known ahead of time. In the dozens of pathfinder DM's I've had, I've never seen one that excludes/alters fitting.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes I agree. It would have been a lot less effort to leave them as is. And yet they had to be Faqd.
And this was the answer. So are we blaming the PDT for answering a question?
Blaming them for making a FAQ that doesn't make sense taking into account other rules in place: yes.
A dozen or two other rule elements are going to have to be errata'd to force this FAQ to work as it seems intended. Should we blame them for the issues this will bring up and the fall out that comes: IMO yes. a path existed to keep going as expected but they turned off into the grass. Don't blame the grass because the car ride got rough off-road.
EDIT: For me, the most irksome thing is the unintuitive nature of this, and other, FAQ's. It's one thing to rule on something that truly unclear. It's another to turn everything upside down by bypassing the way you know almost everyone thinks it works and picking another.
|
|
Yes I agree. It would have been a lot less effort to leave them as is. And yet they had to be Faqd.
And this was the answer. So are we blaming the PDT for answering a question?
No, it's more for 'What mathematical language were they using for the Answer, so we can build a proper Computer to ask the right Question?'
|
|
And to the enchant, it worked perfectly fine with the way almost everyone knew/expected the rules to work. When someone starts mucking around with the accepted norm, don't blame innocent bystanders that caused no problems until someone knocked over the apple cart on top of it...
Well you see the best part about this is that it's just a FAQ with no errata. Because a FAQ means that TECHNICALLY the rules ALWAYS WORKED THIS WAY. Thus fitting was built, existed, and was approved for PFS with the rule ALWAYS WORKING THIS WAY. WHY would the fact that it got clarified force the removal of said approved material when it was already approved under the CORRECT RULES? We can easily see that this was ALWAYS the intent of the devs via all the text that says otherwise. If the original intent and the way everyone made rules off of this wasn't this view but some other view, why in the world would they go and change the intent and invalidate rules?
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes I agree. It would have been a lot less effort to leave them as is. And yet they had to be Faqd.
And this was the answer. So are we blaming the PDT for answering a question?
Blaming them for making a FAQ that doesn't make sense taking into account other rules in place: yes.
A dozen or two other rule elements are going to have to be errata'd to force this FAQ to work as it seems intended. Should we blame them for the issues this will bring up and the fall out that comes: IMO yes. a path existed to keep going as expected but they turned off into the grass. Don't blame the grass because the car ride got rough off-road.
EDIT: For me, the most irksome thing is the unintuitive nature of this, and other, FAQ's. It's one thing to rule on something that truly unclear. It's another to turn everything upside down by bypassing the way you know almost everyone thinks it works and picking another.
Exactly. I don't blame them for answering, I also don't blame them for making rulings I don't like, I blame them for making ruling that don't seem to fit within the existing system and it's rules, and for being overly oppressive. Which their most recent FAQs are seeming to be.
Here's the gauntlet answer, "It's an attack that provokes, that can't be enchanted, that isn't a weapon nor an unarmed strike nor counts as an unarmed attack for any rule material that references unarmed attacks, and doesn't qualify for any feats, and counts as armor for monks, and doesn't count as the material the armor is for attacks with it."
There's that seems to be in line with their current view of the game.
You know, I missed this FAQ entirely, so I didn't realize this was a thing. After reading the FAQ, I still really don't understand what all the "hooplaw" is about.
The FAQ says that multipliers for size, shape, and so on, apply after calculating the regular price of the item. Which means that the size of said items don't matter unless they're equal to your size, since a lot of cases require that the item is sized appropriately for you in order to wear it in the first place (such as Armor). Large Bastard Swords are perhaps the only time I can see this getting out of hand, and even that's not going to be an issue since the scaling problems are minimal at most. Gotta pay 6,000 instead of 3,000 for that Adamantine Large Bastard Sword? Makes sense, it's ~2x the size and weight of a Medium-sized one. You wanted to have a big weapon, now you're gonna have to compensate for it, in more ways than one, I'd imagine...
Last I checked, using size-scaling effects usually permitted gear of your size to scale with your current size, and if you didn't have that option with the effect you're benefitting from, then either A. you had vendor trash, or B. you're in a form that wouldn't really benefit from using that sort of item in the first place.
And the default rule isn't that items of a different size automatically resize to your character, magical or not. That's a PFS issue. PFS issues should be handled with PFS rules changes, and that's that. The FAQ has nothing to do with this problem, it's PFS permitting a rule that, as many posters have demonstrated, can be abused to the point of breaking the game.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know, I missed this FAQ entirely, so I didn't realize this was a thing. After reading the FAQ, I still really don't understand what all the "hooplaw" is about.
The FAQ says that multipliers for size, shape, and so on, apply after calculating the regular price of the item. Which means that the size of said items don't matter unless they're equal to your size, since a lot of cases require that the item is sized appropriately for you in order to wear it in the first place (such as Armor). Large Bastard Swords are perhaps the only time I can see this getting out of hand, and even that's not going to be an issue since the scaling problems are minimal at most. Gotta pay 6,000 instead of 3,000 for that Adamantine Large Bastard Sword? Makes sense, it's ~2x the size and weight of a Medium-sized one. You wanted to have a big weapon, now you're gonna have to compensate for it, in more ways than one, I'd imagine...
Last I checked, using size-scaling effects usually permitted gear of your size to scale with your current size, and if you didn't have that option with the effect you're benefitting from, then either A. you had vendor trash, or B. you're in a form that wouldn't really benefit from using that sort of item in the first place.
And the default rule isn't that items of a different size automatically resize to your character, magical or not. That's a PFS issue. PFS issues should be handled with PFS rules changes, and that's that. The FAQ has nothing to do with this problem, it's PFS permitting a rule that, as many posters have demonstrated, can be abused to the point of breaking the game.
The main points of the issue are threefold
1) This largely impacts animal companions, being large and not humanoid makes their armor 4x as expensive, people enjoyed having breastplates or full plate out of mithral to still benefit from the AC's high dex bonus.2) There are other rules stating that masterwork doesn't factor into the multiplied cost, but now this rule says it does, thus invalidating the rules up to this point without saying this is errata changing the rules.
3) a large bastard sword costing 3,000gp more does not make sense in the context of the game. It costs 6,000gp, a huge dagger that is smaller than the large bastard sword costs 12,000. If going from a large bastard sword to medium greatsword is 3,000gp, then going from a medium greatsword to a small dagger should also include a price change, cause you should clearly pay less than someone who "wanted to have a big weapon", cause they should "have to compensate for it". Obviously these aren't true, and thus is a very faulty base to say this rule makes sense.
Darksol the Painbringer: The big difference is that if you have a Colossal mount you can now either pay 17700gp for a +1 full plate tiny fitting adamantine barding or 528000gp for colossal +1 adamantine barding. Add 2000gp to the colossal barding and now the same creatures can wear both bardings and they are mechanically the same even though the cost is different by 518,300gp...
This is of course the most extreme case but even a huge mount is a difference of x1 cost +3000gp vs x8 +1000gp cost for barding.
Cold iron is a poor example of how this FAQ works with the old rules since it states in the core rulebook that you don't double the cost of masterwork for cold iron weapons (pg 154).
Pretty much my only issue with the FAQ.
I'm not a society member, so maybe someone could answer a question for me: whats is the general ratio between "defeated a large+ creature possessing mstwk+ gear" and "went shopping for large+ gear"?
Won't this drastically increase the loot value of many encounters?
You don't keep the loot on enemies in Pathfinder Society. You get a set amount of gold per scenario based on what you did.
Once you get your set amount of gold, you then use this to buy gear. No looting corpses (except for using whatever you find until the end of the scenario).
Most likely the monster stat blocks will ignore this cost multiplier price rule. It'll only affect the players.
Does this FAQ mostly impact animal companion users or is this people blowing things significantly out of proportions by suggesting that magical enhancements are also multiplied? I can definitely see this being a pain for animal companion users, but I don't see literally anything to suggest it affects enhancements, because those are added after the items creation as an additional cost. But I mean, go ahead and call this the death of the game...jeez...kind of a strong reaction.
Cool. Someone give me a good, comprehensive list of exactly what those problems are then before I back your petition.
Does this FAQ mostly impact animal companion users or is this people blowing things significantly out of proportions by suggesting that magical enhancements are also multiplied? I can definitely see this being a pain for animal companion users, but I don't see literally anything to suggest it affects enhancements, because those are added after the items creation as an additional cost. But I mean, go ahead and call this the death of the game...jeez...kind of a strong reaction.
For the average character that wears heavy armor made of special materials, it just became cheaper to buy armor. If you are putting armor of special materials for companions, the price dropped. Now, once they go through and do a few dozen errata and nerf a bunch of options, it may get more expensive which seems to be the intent.
I think for most of us that dislike it, it's not that it's 'the death of the game' but it's needless trouble for a questionable gain. Many things will have to change and it made the game better how? What was gained by making colossal +1 plate mail cost 518,300gp [x12 weight] but having a small Emei piercer cost the same for adamantine as a dwarven long hammer even though it's x20 the weight...
I think that's the only issue I have with it. The size and materials are fine, as is the eventual "fitting only changes up to 1 size" that I can already see coming.
1 size still means it's cheaper to buy tiny for small characters' armor and large creatures buying medium weapons. The only 'fix' at this point is to remove the size changing enchants/magics or effectively remove them by pricing them out of an acceptable price range for the effect. Neither options IMO is a good one.
You know, I missed this FAQ entirely, so I didn't realize this was a thing. After reading the FAQ, I still really don't understand what all the "hooplaw" is about.
The FAQ says that multipliers for size, shape, and so on, apply after calculating the regular price of the item. Which means that the size of said items don't matter unless they're equal to your size, since a lot of cases require that the item is sized appropriately for you in order to wear it in the first place (such as Armor). Large Bastard Swords are perhaps the only time I can see this getting out of hand, and even that's not going to be an issue since the scaling problems are minimal at most. Gotta pay 6,000 instead of 3,000 for that Adamantine Large Bastard Sword? Makes sense, it's ~2x the size and weight of a Medium-sized one. You wanted to have a big weapon, now you're gonna have to compensate for it, in more ways than one, I'd imagine...
Last I checked, using size-scaling effects usually permitted gear of your size to scale with your current size, and if you didn't have that option with the effect you're benefitting from, then either A. you had vendor trash, or B. you're in a form that wouldn't really benefit from using that sort of item in the first place.
And the default rule isn't that items of a different size automatically resize to your character, magical or not. That's a PFS issue. PFS issues should be handled with PFS rules changes, and that's that. The FAQ has nothing to do with this problem, it's PFS permitting a rule that, as many posters have demonstrated, can be abused to the point of breaking the game.
The main points of the issue are threefold
1) This largely impacts animal companions, being large and not humanoid makes their armor 4x as expensive, people enjoyed having breastplates or full plate out of mithral to still benefit from the AC's high dex bonus.2) There are other rules stating that masterwork doesn't factor into the multiplied cost, but now...
Except the normal way for calculating it with Animal Companions only required adjusting the base price of the item. Mithril Full Plate, costing 16,500 gold to purchase, would've always been 66,000 gold by the old rules. Granted, it'd be slightly lower due to factoring the Masterwork cost, but the cost reduction would be minimal, 450 gold at best. (Every gold piece counts, but that's not the point here.) Even then, there are no rules for calculating the Masterwork differential, since the material defaults to being Masterwork.
The rule contradiction plays a minor factor, true, but when you're working with materials that are Masterwork by default, already include their cost into the pricing, and having a differential solution equating to houseruling it, what are you going to do to remedy that situation without creating new tables and entries and such to compensate for this sort of thing? Hence, why the PDT just decided "You know what? F!@# it, the Masterwork cost is minimal in regards to the multipliers involved, and it'd be a pain to fix it properly, so we're just gonna use this much simpler (and lazier) option."
Actually, it does, because the pricing is based on what creature size the weapon is made for. A Large Longsword will cost twice as much as a Medium Greatsword, even though they are probably identical in raw size and shape (and most statistics, I might add), but because the Longsword is fitted to a Large creature, it costs more. You can argue that this is bad rules design, and my fellow players do it every time I bring up Inappropriately-sized Weapon rules, but the rules do exist.
@ Graystone: I don't remember there being a fitting armor property that automatically scaled the size of the armor item to your size. If it exists, I demand a link for it. (I also question the purpose of having a "fitting" property on armor, since that is not only extremely niche, but also most likely not something the PDT would create, as evidenced by the PFS abuse people cite).
If it doesn't (and you're merely referencing the PFS ruling), then quite frankly all the FAQ does is put PFS' rulings specifically into PFS, which means the FAQ hasn't really changed anything, and people are only JUST NOW realizing how expensive it can get to properly outfit a mount.
This isn't like the Arrow Enhancement FAQ, where people have played rules in a different way for the longest time, and the PDT coming in and ruining everyone's fun. This is simply a result of people complaining that they can't abuse the PFS system to outfit their animal companions (or even themselves) for a price infinitely cheaper than doing it the way it was intended to be done. In which case, guess what? It's a PFS problem. Not a regular game problem. Which means the solution lies with PFS, not the regular game.
The last time we had people trying to expand the solution beyond what was all involved, the PDT ruined an entire feat chain and had to police all of the volatility that was running rampant due to their knee-jerk reaction from the complaints of employees who weren't satisfied with a simple fix for a simple issue. I suggest we not have a repeat of the Crane Wing incident, because stuff like this is precisely what causes that sort of stuff to happen.
Cool. Someone give me a good, comprehensive list of exactly what those problems are then before I back your petition.
Old (assumed correct) pricing system: Take base weapon cost, multiply it by the cost multipliers (eg. x2 for cold iron, x2 for large, etc.) and then add cost of materials or masterwork (eg. +3,000 adamantine weapon, +300 masterwork weapon).
New (FAQ cited) system: Add cost of materials or masterwork, then multiply it by the cost modifiers.
Under the old system, Amiri the iconic barbarian had a +2 large bastard sword at 7th level. This weapon costs 370 gp for the base weapon, plus the cost of the +2 enchantment.
Under the new system, Amiri the iconic barbarian instead pays 670 gp for her base weapon, plus the cost of the +2 enchantment.
Under the old system, a suit of +1 mithral fullplate costs 10,500 gp for the base armor, plus an extra 1,000 gp for the +1 enchantment.
Under the new system, a suit of tiny +1 fitting mithral fullplate costs 5,250 gp for the base armor, plus an extra 3,000 gp for the +1 fitting enchantment, saving 3,250 gp on the item cost.
fitting There is also spells [that can be made permanent], a ring that resizes items and slivers that resize weapons. This enchant isn't a lone standout.
Does this FAQ mostly impact animal companion users or is this people blowing things significantly out of proportions by suggesting that magical enhancements are also multiplied? I can definitely see this being a pain for animal companion users, but I don't see literally anything to suggest it affects enhancements, because those are added after the items creation as an additional cost. But I mean, go ahead and call this the death of the game...jeez...kind of a strong reaction.For the average character that wears heavy armor made of special materials, it just became cheaper to buy armor. If you are putting armor of special materials for companions, the price dropped. Now, once they go through and do a few dozen errata and nerf a bunch of options, it may get more expensive which seems to be the intent.
I think for most of us that dislike it, it's not that it's 'the death of the game' but it's needless trouble for a questionable gain. Many things will have to change and it made the game better how? What was gained by making colossal +1 plate mail cost 518,300gp [x12 weight] but having a small Emei piercer cost the same for adamantine as a dwarven long hammer even though it's x20 the weight...
So the problem is the threat of potential future changes to pricing in order to compensate for alterations to prices. Which...I'm not exactly sure I fully understand. How does this make it cheaper to purchase items? I thought this would make it cheaper to craft items, since the craft multiplier is applied to the craft base price. Also, again, where the hell are you getting that price from for the colossal full plate? I don't think I can even get that number with the suggested price alterations, on top of masterwork and on top of enhancing the item.
Cool. Someone give me a good, comprehensive list of exactly what those problems are then before I back your petition.just read what people are saying they mention it multiple times in the first 2 pages.
problem 1. faq says to multiply for size after masterwork and everything else. this directly contradicts the crb for special material and ultimate equipment.
problem 2. because of this you can now make a tiny size adamantine full plate and stick resizing enchantment on it for next to nothing and pow you now have a huge size armor for next to nothing.
the faq is greatly broken and was poorly thought out
Okay, point 1 seems pointless because who cares they can change the game as they please from CRB. They should, CRB is a mess of rules grandfathered from 3.5. But point 2 does have some interesting ramifications and I can definitely understand the problem there.
No. Loot value is determined by what the encounter says it is. (or more recently, how much you lose if you fubar the encounter)
Won't this drastically increase the loot value of many encounters?
It would for non-PFS encounters. Even masterwork colossal armor nets you 4650 more gold than it did before.
I don't think I've ever had a character that would be affected meaningfully by this (and I play mostly martials) but the fact that "dragging a giant's mithril armor out of his castle is now an enormous windfall" is pretty strange to me.
Also, again, where the hell are you getting that price from for the colossal full plate? I don't think I can even get that number with the suggested price alterations, on top of masterwork and on top of enhancing the item.
Take armor price + adamantine price. For full plate that's 1500 + 15000. NOW the armor table says that colossal armor costs x32. so 16500 x 32 = 528000.
You didn't say it was adamantine in your post. Now that number makes more sense.