@Lune: Would you mind posting some of these builds? I’d be very interested in seeing what you’ve come under with.
I gave most of one above. I'd prefer to not post it. I'm a bit paranoid at this point that I have a stalker on Paizo's staff who follows around my posts and nerfs my builds. ... what?
Slim Jim: You might think that. But then you'd be wrong.
Just further upthread, The Only Star wrote:
Isn't Celestial Armor made of bright silver or gold?
Later Lau Bannenberg actually backed him up saying:
Lau Bannenberg wrote:
So the relevant rules for this are in the PFS FAQ
What are the rules for upgrading weapons, armor, and wondrous items?
You may upgrade one weapon, armor, or wondrous item to another as long as the new item occupies the same slot, is made of the same material, has the same general shape, and has all of the abilities of the original item. For example, you can upgrade a +1 longsword into a +1 frost longsword or a cloak of resistance +1 into a cloak of resistance +2. You may also upgrade a magic weapon or armor into one of the named weapons or armors, such as upgrading a +1 banded mail into a banded mail of luck. As another example, you can upgrade a belt of incredible dexterity +2 into a belt of the weasel from Pathfinder RPG Ultimate Equipment , which grants a +2 enhancement bonus to Dexterity as well as other benefits.
To upgrade a magic item, pay the difference in price between the new item and the original item.
I have a few questions.
1. Can one upgrade a +1 Flaming Longsword into a +1 Flaming Burst Longsword?
My personal opinion:
This seems to meet every item of the checklist: same slot, made of the same material, same general shape, and has all of the abilities of the original item. I see no reason why not.
2. Can one upgrade a +1 Flame Burst Longsword into a Flame Tongue?
My personal opinion:
Again, it hits all points of the checklist. A Flame Tongue is just a slightly modified +1 Flaming Burst Longsword. It just has a 1/day power added on.
My personal opinion:
Same slot? Check. Same material? ...well it depends on how granular you want to get. I'd rather not have to deal with another lame "expect table variation" answer on this one. It seems like it would be a fairly common question when dealing with materials whether it is this specific upgrade path or not. Are we looking for same material like "metal" or "leather or hide"? Or are we looking for something more specific like "steel", "mithril", "rhino hide" or "mammoth hide"? I can see it going either way and while I have a preference I wouldn't want rules based on it. I just want consistency.
4. Can one upgrade Chainmail (Mithral or otherwise) in to Celestial Armor?
Celestial Armor stats:
Aura faint transmutation [good]; CL 5th; Weight 20 lbs.; Price 22,400 gp
This +3 chainmail is so fine and light that it can be worn under normal clothing without betraying its presence. It has a maximum Dexterity bonus of +8, an armor check penalty of –2, and an arcane spell failure chance of 15%. It is considered light armor and allows the wearer to use fly on command (as the spell) once per day.
Craft Magic Arms and Armor, fly, creator must be good; Cost 11,350 gp
My personal opinion:
Same slot? Check. Made of the same material? Celestial Armor doesn't mention what it is made out of at all. If I were to guess at what it is made of I would have to guess Mithril due to it's weight and due to it being considered light armor. But that is just a guess. Suggesting that it is made of steel like regular Chainmail is and that the lightness is due to magical qualities is an equally valid guess. I think we can at least be fairly certain it is made of metal?... or can we? I mean... just a guess again but I doubt that Druids are able to wear it due to it's supposed metalness.
Moving along, it is the same general shape, and has all of the abilities of the original item. Well...kinda. It does everything that +3 Mithril Chainmail does except that it has a crazy high max Dex bonus. To me this is no different than saying that a Flame Tongue does everything that a +1 Flaming Burst Longsword does except that it also has a once per day ability. The Flame Tongue doesn't mention what it is made out of other than to say that it is a +1 Flaming Burst Longsword. Sorta like how Celestial Armor just says that it is +3 Chainmail. Heck, depending on how granular you want to get I could easily see the +1 Flaming Burst Longsword being made out of Adamantine before it is upgraded into a Flame Tongue. Since the entry on Flame Tongue doesn't mention what it is made out of other than being a +1 Flaming Burst Longsword I would think that Longsword could be made out of any metal.
My personal opinion:
Same slot - check.
Same material - check, "crystal" vs "prism" seems close enough I think if we are allowing rhino hide to be the same as mammoth hide.
Same general shape - check, I think? I assume they are shaped about the same. There isn't a lot of text in the entries to tell. But the FAQ says "general" I think for a reason.
Has all of the abilities of the original item - check. ...mostly. Eyes of the Eagle have the added effect of if you remove one it stuns you for a round.
I'm fully on board with same material and same general shape. Material seems as close as you can get without going more specific than "general". Abilities seems close enough to me but the stun bit might be enough for some to think it would ruin it all.
The crux of the matter:
B. How general is "general shape"? Are most eye slot items going to be the same "general shape"? Are lenses, goggles and monocles all about the same? I'm assuming eye patches and blindfolds are too different? With weapons I would think that they have to be the same type of weapon but could see an argument for weapon groups I guess.
James Risner wrote:
Actually, James, you argued that extracts are not liquids. That was your response in the second post in this thread.
Lorewalker was accurate with his statement.
lol, read the whole thread. Going to favorite this one so I can reference it as that time that James argued that extracts are not liquids even though you drink them. I've seen some doozies for reasoning on this board before but that one takes the trophy I think.
Anyway, am I missing something here? It is a Divine Fighting Technique. Don't you have to be a "cleric, inquisitor, or warpriest who worships a deity" in order to take it unless you meet the Optional Replacement clause? So aside from all of the other requirements that people are talking about to meet the Advanced Prerequisites you would also have to be a "A chaotic good fighter or swashbuckler of at least 10th level" that worships Cayden Cailean.
So we are talking about what here? Swashbuckler 10 with a splash of Alchemist so he can drink his extracts quickly while fighting? I mean, is there anyone who is honestly arguing a balance issue exists for this? Hell, even to get the Initial Benefits you would have to have at least one level in Cleric, Inquisitor, Warpriest, Swashbuckler or Fighter and worship Cayden. Thats pretty damned niche.
Also, comparing feats like Potion Glutton et al to this is a practice in futility. Paizo has a track record of nerfing Dex to Damage and has done so with the X Grace feats but hasn't touched Dervish Dance yet. This "issue" would fit that situation.
And outside of actual rules based disagreements we are left with "extracts aren't liquid even though you drink them"?
This is like... a whole big thing. From someone who has partook in several and started at least one long thread on the issue suffice it to say that the rules are not clear. If it is for PFS expect table variation. If it is for a home game clear it up with the GM first.
But most importantly ponder the fact that both options are good for your party. If you don't provoke an AoO from Stepping Up into their square then that is good for you. If you DO provoke an AoO then it is good for your party. Most Tiny creatures have pretty stellar ACs. And honestly, if they don't then they are doing it wrong. Wasting your enemy's AoOs on a target that they aren't going to hit is a good thing.
For my part I'll post a few concepts I have.
I would like to play a character who uses the Bladed Brush feat the way I feel it was intended. The feat is banned. The entire Path of the Righteous book is banned (save for a few choice options). Even if it weren't, unfortunately the feat leaves some ambiguities that I wouldn't want to deal with in organized play.
I feel that it is flavorful. In fact, I feel that everything in that book is so very flavorful to the campaign setting that I'm surprised it got banned. The options that it offers are options that bring life to the concepts of several archetypes that Paizo has created for Golarion.
I will be playing in a new home game soon and have been excitedly considering character concepts. This is one of the most entertaining things in my life, by the way. It may seem silly but designing characters at the start of a new game is something I cherish when it happens and always look forward to.
This time is a bit different, though, as it is the first home game I will be playing in after getting involved deeply into PFS. I am finding that most of the concepts that I am considering are ones that will not work in PFS. It isn't due to roleplaying issues or compatibility of the concepts with organized play. They are all mechanical reasons. Either feats or classes that are banned in PFS or they use rules that are ambiguous enough that I would have to deal with table variation to the point of making the concept unplayable.
I'm not here to complain about it though. My thought was that I'm likely not alone with this issue. If I werre a member of campaign leadership I would want to know what areas of organized play my player base (or prospective player base) thinks can be improved. As long as the ideas do not conflict with the setting, disrupt the balance of the organized play environment or are precluded by specific PFS rules they are likely worth at least considering.
This is all supposed to be constructive so lets keep this to a couple of guidelines:
1: Only post concepts that are blocked due to banned materials or ambiguous rules. Things that can be remedied by something being allowed or cleared up.
2: Post the source that the content you would like to work comes from.
3: Post why you want to play it and why it would be good in PFS (or at least not worse than in a home game).
With any luck leadership could use this thread as feedback on what their players would like to see and could use this as a guide to see which resources need attention for being permitted in PFS.
Yeah, there are some specials where you play pregens and party cohesion is not assumed and the ban on pvp is lifted. Motivations are even given to characters for the party to dysfunction. Sometimes you are even rewarded for killing a party member. And sometimes when these things are true it doesn't even have special rules for not having to assigning a dead chronicle to your character.
I can understand why, in these circumstances, it doesn't seem fair to have to apply your dead chronicle to your character. In many of these situations I can see one feeling forced into playing a character they didn't want to play, doing things they didn't want to do, having motivations they hadn't planned for and don't like playing and this all culminating in the death of a character that they DO like and have invested their own time and money into. Not just in game time and money but actual real world time and money.
HMM: Definitely truce.
I can see where your interpretation came from. But look at it from my perspective. My thread started off fairly positive and quickly devolved into arguments over how the feat works rather than targeting to allow the feat. This was largely out of my control though I probably didn't help things much when I engaged that discussion rather than starting a separate rules thread. My only excuse is that at the time I didn't think it would go as far as it did.
By the time you came in I was already on edge as I had already felt that not only my opinions of how the feat works were being attacked but my premise for petitioning to allow the feat. After having to deal with that criticism I think you can probably see how words from you (whom I consider an online friend) was interpreted as criticism as well. Not only that but it felt like you were trying to rub it in my face about how you have had success in the past with your methods while either failing to recognize or outright dismissing my own.
The comment about stars and people being full of themselves is more of a observation of behavior on these boards than specifically directed at you. I think I actually intended that to be directed at someone else but I don't have the time to look back right now. Either way, I think the superiority complex happens around here all the time. Likely less so from you.
The way I feel about euphemisms is true but not fully directed at you. I dislike it when people use them around me. They are often used to make a less serious issue seem not as bad as it is. As an example I dislike it when people say, "I didn't lie. I just didn't tell the truth. It was a 'white lie'." I dislike it because if it gets to the point where I am offended then it doesn't matter what the intention of the white lie was, it failed. And a lie of omission is still a lie. Again, probably an extreme example and it has nothing to do with you but you can see where I'm coming from. Thus I call it like it is.
In the end I think that my petition likely was taken as whining and complaining so my perception on euphemisms likely backfired. I'd say that I will endeavor to change but on this point it likely wont happen. Disliking the use of euphemisms has become ingrained in my personality.
Either way, the quotes were simply meant to quote the words you had used not mockingly. While I understand where you and others are coming from I think that assumed tone in text has a lot to do with misinterpretations of perspectives in this thread. Myself, apparently, included.
Anyway, no hard feelings. I do think it is a bit ironic that my supposed "irony quotes" were meant as the exact opposite and to take your advice and use your words. That is what leaves me with this feeling of failing despite my best efforts to come across as positive.
Lau Bannenberg wrote:
I agree with Ryan Freire's assessment regarding Spell Combat. This doesn't prevent a Magus from using Bladed Brush but even if it were allowed with Spell Combat using a Glaive seems subpar to begin with mostly due to it's threat range.
Regarding your first point, I disagree. Many things have made it into PFS while being unclear. Slashing Grace itself is a perfect example of this. If you mean "should" rather than "could" then I agree. But I could give several examples of things that made it into PFS on shaky ground.
I'm sure that people will find fault in what I am about to say but hey, that has never stopped me before:
The same goes for game balance. Game balance is something that should be enjoyed by both PFS players and Pathfinder players in general. I find it very hard to believe that a martial option like this could be unbalanced when compared to the rest of the system. At the cost of perpetuating cliches shared on these boards, I agree with the often shared opinion of "martials can't have nice things" sentiment when I see judgement calls made on content like this. Not that I think that balance was the reason this has been disallowed (mostly due to the book being banned entirely outside of a few choice items).
BNW: In what way is it 3 feats in one? It does NOT give Dex to Damage. It attacks in melee sans penalty just as much as any other melee weapon. Not sure what that was a reference to? It doesn't allow you to treat your weapon as a light weapon. It allows you to treat it as a "one-handed piercing or slashing melee weapon".
Are you reading the same feat that we are? It takes 3 feats to use it (Weapon Focus, Weapon Finesse and Bladed Brush). Is that what you meant? Four Feats (the 3 aforementioned plus Slashing Grace), a magic item (Agile) or 3 levels in URogue if you want a Dex to Damage option.
Glaive also has a poor threat range so isn't an ideal weapon for a Swashbuckler or Magus. And if it becomes the only weapon that Maguses would use then I would submit that would be in large part due to Paizo removing most of their other Dex to Damage options after printing specifically to allow for Dex to Damage as an option for them.
edit: Ninja'd by Mekkis.
HMM: I get it. I am more abrasive than some people. It is just me. In person it doesn't come across as bad as it does in text because despite my bitterness I am still a generally happy person. I like you and can't think of a less abrasive way of putting this so I am just going to say it: By pointing out my abrasiveness did you think I would become less abrasive? I can tell you that in practice that rarely works. I will try to take your words positively, though I think your message may have been more appropriate in a private message rather than publicly pointing out a character flaw.
Ragoz: You have a good point here. I mean, paying for a whole book and being able to use almost none of it isn't a very good value. I think from now on I will have to wait to see what is allowed in PFS before deciding to purchase a book. If it goes the way this one did then I likely wont pick it up at all. I do kinda feel dooped. :(
Blake's Tiger: Technically it is reach OR close. It isn't both at the same time. It takes a move action to switch your grip.
Also, again, you are applying a Dex to damage argument to a feat that doesn't grant that. Slashing Grace (or Agile) does. I would say that if you have a problem with that then you should take it up with Slashing Grace. But I wish you wouldn't. Dex to Damage builds have already taken several heavy hits from the nerf bat. And it already wasn't a strong option, just a different one.
...its almost like they lined up the nerfing of Dex to Damage with the release of URogue, but I'm sure that is just WILD speculation. ;)
Ragoz: Heh. Thank you for that.
edit: Also, I do very much hope that Bladed Brush is at least one of the reserved options. I mean... I think it is already pretty reserved what with the feat taxes and deity requirement. But if it isn't then I would just like to ask for it to be allowed.
Oh... Slashing Grace isn't even compatible with Bladed Brush? Hm. I'm going to have to disagree with that. I mean with a pedantic reading I can see where someone could claim that because Slashing Grace specifically says "Choose one kind of light or one-handed slashing weapon..." rather than "Choose one kind of weapon that can be wielded as a light or one-handed slashing weapon..." that it isn't usable. But if we want to fight pedantics with pedantics then a small sized Glaive is one handed to a Medium character and technically it would still give reach. Is it ridiculous? Yes. But no more ridiculous than that reading of Slashing Grace. Especially when Bladed Brush says, "When wielding a glaive, you can treat it as a one-handed piercing or slashing melee weapon and as if you were not making attacks with your off-hand for all feats and class abilities that require such a weapon (such as a duelist’s or swashbuckler’s precise strike)."
As long as you have Bladed Brush before you take Slashing Grace I do not see the issue as it counts as a one handed slashing weapon for all feats. How is that unclear? It says "all". Not "all except Slashing Grace".
Hell. For that matter even Agile would work too.
While I agree that it is a powerful option when combined with other feats/abilities so too are many other feats and combinations (like finessing and power attacking with an elven curve blade) that are already allowed. I know I'm beating a dead horse with my viewpoint here but if it was too powerful then it shouldn't have made it to print at all. Allowing it to be printed and disallowing it from use (especially with the tasty art that you mentioned) is cruelly presenting a carot on a stick. Especially for something so thematic.
As far as power is concerned, I do not think it is overly powerful. It is funny how many people (even people in this very thread) have expressed that a Dex to damage based build is strong here, yet many of these same people would argue in other threads that Dex to damage builds are weak by comparison to Str focused builds.
And, as Claxon pointed out, the feat does not even give Dex to damage. It allows for you to take a Dex to damage feat. An opportunity that you only get after worshipping only a specific deity, spending the feat tax on Weapon Focus to take Bladed Brush in the first place, picking up Weapon Finesse (either as a class ability or the feat itself) and then, finally, taking Slashing Grace. So, the argument being made is that getting Dex to damage on a Glaive (not just any polearm, only the Glaive) is too powerful for the expenditure of 3 feats and the worship of only a single deity?
I deny this claim and I think if anyone actually thinks about it they would too. If it were such a problem then why isn't it an issue for the Elven Curve Blade? You can already do it with that weapon for only a 2 feat investment and it has the same damage as a Glaive (wider threat range, lower crit multiplier, so better). Spending another feat and requiring the worship of a specific deity seems like a fine balance to allow the same thing with a specific reach weapon. No one complains about this with the Elven Curve Blade. In fact, most people say that it is underpowered compared to Str based options.
In fact, to me this seems to all be part of a subplot to nerf Dex based martials. It happened with all (most) of the X Grace feats. Dex Magus got nerfed into oblivion. It makes me wonder why Paizo keeps printing Dex based options if they think it is too powerful. This is also confusing when contrasted with the advice board's collective majority opinion that Dex to Damage builds are weaker than their Str based counterparts. It is really bizarre to me. I would kind of like to lock some Paizo devs into a room with some of the optimizers from these boards so they can hash out what is "too powerful". No offense to either party intended.
I do agree with Sebastian on a couple of points though. It would be a fairly powerful option for the Magus. I mean, we can't let them have Dex to damage, right? (partial sarcasm) So fine. If this is something that had been planned to be included on chronicle sheets perhaps release it with a Magus caveat. But don't reduce the power attack ratio unless you do the same thing for the Elven Curve Blade. It would be an internally mechanically dishonest move.
Well, honestly, IMO if it is too powerful then it just shouldn't be printed at all. That doesn't make it a good reason to not make it into PFS. If it is a balance issue then something else should have been added to balance the feat. They could have added more skill or feat requirements or split it into two feats. But they stabbed themselves in the foot if it was a power issue during editing.
Kalindlara could be right about wanting to avoid Magus arguments. I could see that. But, outside of that I'm not sure why it was banned. As far as flavor goes, well... I don't know if a more flavorful feat exists for Shelynites.
Unfortunately for the players that means that regardless if it was banned for balance reasons or not that we get a carrot on a stick that we can never reach. That is why I'm trying to make our voice heard. Apparently I am either failing or alone in the wish to have this made PFS compatible though as I didn't get a single like.
By the way, the whining bit was a joke. Well, kinda. When people come to the boards and ask for things to be changed it is tantamount to whining. Calling it anything else is really just a euphemism. I'm not deluding myself. When I know I am basically just complaining about something I am as honest with myself as I am with my intended audience. Still, if you prefer "petitioning" I did mention that in my opening post.
I thought that is what I just did?
And honestly, it isn't that hard to just add a link on the page. I feel like saying there are a lot of moving parts seems like a way of making it sound more complicated than it is. You can take this all as negativity if you want... well, I mean, I am complaining here and acknowledge that. But the more constructive way to take it is constructively. Which is how it was meant.
Was playing a 3.x game in Worlds Largest Dungeon. I just statted up a new character to play with the group. He was a Frenzied Berzerker Barbarian wielding an oversized Warhammer with Monkey Grip going (of course) with the full Power Attack line. The 4th fight I ever had with the character and we go up against some kind of advanced Tendrilucos. First round I Rage, Frenzie, Power Attack and smack that sucker so hard I did like 3/4 of it's HP in one hit. Feeling pretty accomplished and ready to take on the rest of the combat with my party behind me it moves on to the baddies turn.
The Tendrilucos attacks me (the thing that just hurt it so badly) and easily hits. I was utterly unconcerned about the trivial damage it would deal. It's Grab ability goes off. No problem, I had a damned good opposed grapple check. ...I roll a 1. Ok. Thats not good, but it could be worse it could...
The Tendrilucos Swallows me whole. Pretty bad, but I could probably fight my way out.
The Tendrilucos' stomach acid/poison forces me to roll a save vs. parallelization. Pft. No problem, I got this. My Con is huge especially while raging and my Fort saves are crazy high. I couldn't fail this unless I... I roll another 1.
My character is stuck in the Tendrilucos' belly for an unknown number of rounds. Meanwhile my party tries to fight the rest of the bad guys on the outside and end up basically losing the fight. It seems grim but that I come out of parallelization with only a single round to spare. I do all of my attacks including a Frenzy attack and manage to cut my way out! I'm running, not on Con hitpoints. I'm WELL below that. I'm running on Deathless Frenzy alone. Desperate for a heal I stumble out of the still living gullet of the Tendrilucos reaching out to the Cleric for a heal but he is too far away, low on hit points and cannot reach me through the reach of the beast. The next round my character dies when his rage ends and the Tendrilucos eats him again and the party runs away.
My son has a similar build for PFS. He uses Phalanx Soldier Fighter to be able to use a Bardiche one handed and still use a shield. With Two-Weapon Fighting he can use that shield to bash (and more importantly to threaten) adjacent foes. He also uses Order of the Dragon Cavalier with the Strategist and Honor Guard archetypes. His mount is a Bodyguard Animal Companion Archetype so knows the same tricks he does. The mount helps him place himself and the mount during the first rounds of combat. I would look into all of these options.
I would also suggest looking into the following items: Pliant Gloves, Long Arm Bracers, Boots of Striding and Springing, Drinking Horn of Bottomless Valor and the Fortuitous weapon enhancement. Fortuitous doesn't help when Bodyguard triggers but since you are likely going for reach you will have a lot of AoOs trigger near you.
I would also suggest looking into the Vanguard Style line of feats. They pair up nicely with Bodyguard and Combat Patrol.
edit: Also, I have this thread with both Mark Seifter (resident Paizo rules guy) and Jason Nelson (the designer behind Combat Patrol) posting in support of how they work together.
I dunno, BNW. Even among people who agree that there are people trying to justify exploiting a mechanical advantage can't agree on the way it does work. I'm not even certain what the popular opinion of how it works IS. Personally I am of two minds on the subject. RAW I think it can be thrown as an attack. But for balance reason it seems like you should get more of an advantage for your investment so I think it SHOULD be one extra attack per turn.
If it isn't too much to ask can the FAQ, blog, or whatever also include whether a Familiar plays by the same rules that Animal Companions do for item slots or not. The current FAQ wording leaves a lot to be desired for clarity on the topic.
Basically, if one wanted to have a Brownie as a familiar are they allowed to wear armor (is armor the same as barding here?), wield a weapon (they have a short sword in their stat block), a magic weapon... perhaps even a magic bow? For the record this would be for an Eldritch Guardian Fighter Archetype's Familiar.
Not trying to be overly pedantic but I can't wrap my head around calling what a Brownie would wear "barding". The Monkey See Monkey Do blog cleared up some things and the PFS FAQ states that Animal Companions are not allowed to use manufactured weapons but it says nothing about Familiars. It says Animal Companions can use "barding" and neck slot items but is silent about what Familiars can use other than Ioun Stones and Wands.
KingOfAnything: Kinda funny that your post came just after mine by 4 seconds, so that timing considered I can say that I'm not sure if I can take a step back. Nefreet's issue has just as much to do with his baseless assertions about his fellow gamers as with what is actually legal or not. Coming from someone who is currently the target of his ire (as I now have a totally legal Cthulhu venerator) I think that part of the opinion worth consideration.
For the record I am just as opposed to PFS Clerics worshipping Cthulhu as I am Rovagug so I think we are in agreement there.
The simple question is: do these feats work together?
Your swift strikes ward off enemies attacking nearby allies.
Prerequisite: Combat reflexes.
Benefit: When an adjacent ally is attacked, you may use an attack of opportunity to attempt the aid another action to improve your ally’s AC. You may not use the aid another action to improve your ally’s attack roll with this attack.
Normal: Aid another is a standard action.
You range across the battlefield, dealing with threats wherever they arise.
Prerequisites: Combat reflexes, Mobility, base attack bonus +5.
Benefit: As a full-round action, you may set up a combat patrol, increasing your threatened area by 5 feet for every 5 points of your base attack bonus. Until the beginning of your next turn, you may make attacks of opportunity against any opponent in this threatened area that provokes attacks of opportunity. You may move as part of these attacks, provided your total movement before your next turn does not exceed your speed. Any movement you make provokes attacks of opportunity as normal.
So, can a character who has both feats set up a Combat Patrol and if another character who is within that Combat Patrol gets attacked move to a point adjacent to that character and use an AoO to use Bodyguard to increase their AC?
I have read several posts on this combination and have seen a lot of great feedback from Jason Nelson (the creator of Combat Patrol). I have a pretty strong feeling that the answer is "yes" due to the number of people who understand that it works this way, the feedback given by Jason and the fact that the Animal Companion Protector Archetype is given both feats as bonus feats. It seems to me like these are pretty clear indicators that they work with each other but despite all this and the fact that my son has been playing a character that uses this as his primary schtick for over a year with a multitude of GMs all who had a prior understanding of this combination from previous experiences we have ran into our first resistance to this recently.
A PFS GM at our FLGS has stated that they do not believe that they work together. Apparently they are so adamant about this that they are not willing to allow the combo despite other local GM rulings. In fact, unless I read the situation incorrectly it sounds as if they are completely unwilling to GM for the character. Despite this reaction I respect this GM very much and otherwise see very eye to eye with them and would rather avoid this as a topic of contention.
Unfortunately, I do not understand their perspective on this topic well enough to provide a counter point on this topic. As I know this GM frequents these boards hopefully they might drop by and explain their perspective. I am not trying to be dismissive of their perspective, I just don't understand it well enough to restate it in any way that would do it justice.
And that is all well and nice except for games that do not allow custom item creation. That is an alternate rule and isn't allowed at all tables (or even most tables from my experience). I'm not just talking about PFS here, although that does represent a large player base. This might be hard to believe but there are a LOT of tables that follow the latest errata and do not use alternate rules.
That isn't really the point here, though. To me it sounds like Paizo is making a change that represents the thought that a Luck bonus to AC in general is worth more than just 2,500gp. The statement was made that it is too easy to get a bunch of cheap AC items and that it was throwing off the balance of the game. If that is true then that is an issue that runs to the core of the system. Also, if that is true then it is a problem that can be resolved by adjusting the pricing of a luck bonus to AC.
Removing the only item (that is available to everyone, not just casters) that provides a luck bonus to AC is not the way to resolve the stated issue. Changing the price is.
I am completely with the crowd who believes the real underlying problem is Fate's Favored. In fact, I would bet that a truthful answer from any Paizo Dev would be that they do NOT think that a +1 luck bonus to AC isn't worth 2,500. Mostly, I don't think they would want to say that as it would be akin to stating that it is a flaw that is at the core of the system and I don't think any of them believe that.
It is built into the basic system. If it is too easy to get then it has been too easy to get since 3.0. Take a look the table was the same back then and the luck bonus existed then as well. So if that is a problem then it is a problem that is inherent to the system. If that is the case then maybe repricing how much Luck bonuses cost would be a better solution. Removing them from existing in a form that a player can purchase is NOT a solution.
I have no problem with the item getting nerfed. I think that removing a luck bonus to AC is a bad move from both a mechanical and RP standpoint. The luck bonus matches both flavor and the mechanics of the game. I can understand removing the crit-be-gone part of it as that is difficult to price.
I think it is disingenuous to say that it was done because AC is too easy to get. The luck bonus to armor is something that has been codified in the system since previous iteration of the game and has never caused a problem in and of itself. Currently there is no item to take the place of obtaining the luck bonus. I didn't think that the Jingasa was a problem. It actually made you pay for a feature that you may not want (the crit-be-gone bit) in order to get something you did want (the luck bonus to AC).
If anything I think that the removal of the luck bonus hurts the power curve for the character types who would be most likely to buy it as there is nothing anyone can get that takes it's place currently.
No, I think a better option would have been to change it's price if the power it gave was out of line for it's price. Changing the item to something that doesn't resemble what it was meant for and doesn't give the mechanics that people are looking for is a mistake.
That being said, the purpose of this thread was not to complain. It was to look for other options now that it is gone.
Wonderstell: You are starting with the knowledge that the item price is 5,000gp. What I was asking is for you to NOT start with that assumption. Show the math behind how YOU would price it. Deflection bonus is codified, so is having multiple different abilities. The crit part of it is not. What gold peice value do you put on that ability?
Azten: One time EVER. Not once per day. Ever.
Yeah... I mostly think that the crit part of Jingasa should probably never have existed at all. I can understand why they wanted to errata it. But the rules change doesn't fit crunch or fluff. I mean, it was meant to be fortunate which translates to granting a Luck bonus. Deflection isn't "fortunate". Luck is.
As for pricing, per this table a luck bonus is Bonus squared x 2,500 gp. So, 5k. As far as that once ever ability... it isn't worth much. In the current incarnation they value it at 1,000gp which I feel is high. I would say it would be worth closer to 500gp. I personally value it at far less especially because you cannot upgrade a Jingasa to a +2 version like you can a Ring of Protection.
A lot of those Paizo Devs used to work for WotC and some of them T$R before that! Its a conspiracy, I tell you! They just want your money. Er.... your character's money, I mean!
But we aren't setting the price, only the value of the material component. The economy isn't even doing it. Even if you bicker endlessly about the economics of how much a diamond is worth or if you can use diamond dust you are still talking about the value of that component. Price is determined by the oppressive Paizo Devs. Can't you see that they are winning by making you fight with each other?! That is what they want! Turn your pitchforks on the true enemy and deny the oppressive Paizo spin machine their pleasure in watching you fight each other!
I, for one, am sick of Paizo Devs setting a seemingly arbitrary price on the life of my character. I mean who are they to determine how much my character's life is worth?! I mean at least if it were a price adjusted by level it wouldn't appear so arbitrary! Are we going to put up with this kind of blatant player abuse?! Fight the power!