|
Show me the Gunslinger that starts with 20 Wis on a 15 or 20 point buy and I'll show you a Gunslinger that sucks at everything except Stunning Shot. You'll only have Stunning Shot for like the last 2-3 levels of any AP.
Seriously, a more accurate Gunslinger has maybe 18-20 Wis at level 15. The DC is not going to be that good.
Except I believe +6 is max enhancement from a single source.
That is the standard maximum that is presented in the book. You can make higher than that however. Again, the rules for crafting magic items are given, as is the maximum price.
Why bother telling us how to make a magic item with an enhancement bonus to abilities if you can, in fact, only use what is presented in the book?
Show me the Gunslinger that starts with 20 Wis on a 15 or 20 point buy and I'll show you a Gunslinger that sucks at everything except Stunning Shot. You'll only have Stunning Shot for like the last 2-3 levels of any AP.
Seriously, a more accurate Gunslinger has maybe 18-20 Wis at level 15. The DC is not going to be that good.
And even if we do use point buy, he can still acquire many a grand magic item.
How does a headband of inspired wisdom provide a +14 bonus to Wis?
It doesn't. A Wis of 39, made up of various things including the Headband of Inspired Wisdom +6, does.
It doesn't. A Wis of 39, made up of various things including the Headband of Inspired Wisdom +6, does.
But it can. You can make a headband of inspired wisdom +14. Its possible.
It doesn't. A Wis of 39, made up of various things including the Headband of Inspired Wisdom +6, does.But it can. You can make a headband of inspired wisdom +14. Its possible.
Not if you are trying to do a balanced playtest.
The devs said Stunning Shot was getting a fix. So this scenario is moot.
Also...you're 20th level. Since Paizo doesn't have epic rules, you should be doing epic things at 20th :P
wow, this kept going? it's getting a save, problem fixed, yeah the wizard is ugly too when you start custom making Int raising items of up to +14. (well he was scary anyway but that isn't the point).
I'm totally okay if it takes all his shots for the dragon to fail the save, that means he can only handle one as opposed to 4.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
| 11 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
It seems like the +14 headband is encroaching on artifact territory.
This conversation may be an artifact of 3.5 rules, wherein +6 was the highest you could go on stat items within the normal rules. Anything over that amount was covered in the Epic Level Handbook, and the costing formula was increased by a factor of 10; that is, a +8 stat item was 640,000 gp, and so on for +10 or +12 items. I think +12 was the highest you could go even in Epic rules.
I don't see anything in the PFRPG Core Rulebook specifically allowing or forbidding stat items over +6, other than the implication carried by the highest-bonus premade items that do exist being +6.
A question for the FAQ then:
Are stat booster items capped at +6?
It seems like the +14 headband is encroaching on artifact territory.This conversation may be an artifact of 3.5 rules, wherein +6 was the highest you could go on stat items within the normal rules. Anything over that amount was covered in the Epic Level Handbook, and the costing formula was increased by a factor of 10; that is, a +8 stat item was 640,000 gp, and so on for +10 or +12 items. I think +12 was the highest you could go even in Epic rules.
I don't see anything in the PFRPG Core Rulebook specifically allowing or forbidding stat items over +6, other than the implication carried by the highest-bonus premade items that do exist being +6.
A question for the FAQ then:
Are stat booster items capped at +6?
Where is that covered in the DMG? I just looked through it again, but I find no reference to a stat cap. There might be one in the Epic Level's Guide, but I haven't found one in the DMG or in the CR.
A question for the FAQ then:
Are stat booster items capped at +6?
And why is the caster level for stat boosting items constant? Whether you've got a belt of incredible dexterity +2, +4 or +6, the caster level is always 8, yet cat's grace is a 2nd-level spell, so in theory the caster level for a +4 belt should be CL 3 instead of CL 8 (the SRD does the same inexplicable thing).
In any case, since Paizo did not pull forward the epic part of the SRD, it left kind of a hole in this regard. However, I know that I'd keep the existing limitations in place in order to prevent insanity like a +14 headband of intellect.
And why is the caster level for stat boosting items constant? Whether you've got a belt of incredible dexterity +2, +4 or +6, the caster level is always 8, yet cat's grace is a 2nd-level spell, so in theory the caster level for a +4 belt should be CL 3 instead of CL 8 (the SRD does the same inexplicable thing).In any case, since Paizo did not pull forward the epic part of the SRD, it left kind of a hole in this regard. However, I know that I'd keep the existing limitations in place in order to prevent insanity like a +14 headband of intellect.
Again, I cannot find this cap in 3.5's DMG. Where is it? You guys are speaking of it, but I cannot find it. It may exist in the Epic Level Handbook, but I can find no limit to the max enhancement bonus in either 3.5 or Pathfinder.
But here is my point to why there should never be a cap on ability score magic items only. (The hard cap of the gold limit should remain, but that effects all items, not just ability score increasing items.) Why give us the formula for making a magic item, if the only magic items with enhancement bonuses we can make are the ones in the book?
The CR clearly shows how to make an item with an enhancement bonus, and give us a cap of 200K for a magic item, but nowhere that I can find in 3.5 or PF does it say, "But for ability scores, you may only use the book's pregenerated content."
Why give it if we can't use it?
EDIT:
Also, why does that +14 headband of intellect become so for more overpowered than a fighter's 200,000 sword and 200,000 armor? Why does the caster's equipment need a cap less than that of other classes?
Again, I cannot find this cap in 3.5's DMG. Where is it? You guys are speaking of it, but I cannot find it. It may exist in the Epic Level Handbook, but I can find no limit to the max enhancement bonus in either 3.5 or Pathfinder.
It's in the epic part of the SRD, where it gives a whole list of things that qualify something as epic. (here is the relevant part of the SRD)
But here is my point to why there should never be a cap on ability score magic items only. (The hard cap of the gold limit should remain, but that effects all items, not just ability score increasing items.) Why give us the formula for making a magic item, if the only magic items with enhancement bonuses we can make are the ones in the book?
The CR clearly shows how to make an item with an enhancement bonus, and give us a cap of 200K for a magic item, but nowhere that I can find in 3.5 or PF does it say, "But for ability scores, you may only use the book's pregenerated content."
Why give it if we can't use it?
I'd say the intent was there, but not the execution. Consider magic weapons and armor, which explicitly state that caster level = 3x enhancement bonus (though technically with that, you could create a +6 weapon at level 18, which I doubt was the intent either).
It seems pretty clear to me that the intent is not to allow items with a +14 enhancement bonus to an ability, even if it's not stated in the rules.
But, maybe you're right - maybe it was left out on purpose.
Note that a fighter's 200,000 gp sword (note, that limit doesn't exist any more either) is just a bonus to hit and damage. A spellcaster with at +14 relevant ability item will be looking at boosting their saves if they're a Wisdom-based caster and increasing the number of spells they get and boosting their save DCs and massively boosting their skill points if it's an Intelligence-based item.
Not saying it shouldn't happen - a 196,000gp item should be powerful. I'm just saying that it's unlikely that Paizo decided to depart from the 3.5e base that drastically, at least on purpose.
It's in the epic part of the SRD, where it gives a whole list of things that qualify something as epic. (here is the relevant part of the SRD)
I was unaware that the SRD covered anything except the 3 'cores' (PHB,DMG,MMI).
The CR clearly shows how to make an item with an enhancement bonus, and give us a cap of 200K for a magic item, but nowhere that I can find in 3.5 or PF does it say, "But for ability scores, you may only use the book's pregenerated content."
I'd say the intent was there, but not the execution. Consider magic weapons and armor, which explicitly state that caster level = 3x enhancement bonus (though technically with that, you could create a +6 weapon at level 18, which I doubt was the intent either).
It seems pretty clear to me that the intent is not to allow items with a +14 enhancement bonus to an ability, even if it's not stated in the rules.
But, maybe you're right - maybe it was left out on purpose.
I would be surprised if it wasn't left out on purpose. So far I've not seen anything from Paizo address 'epic levels', and I wonder if they even plan on addressing it.
But it doesn't matter whether we think Paizo left it out on purpose, because we are just stating an opinion. I really think the only way to see what the answer is, is to get it from the horse's mouth. Namely: Paizo staffers.
Note that a fighter's 200,000 gp sword (note, that limit doesn't exist any more either) is just a bonus to hit and damage. A spellcaster with at +14 relevant ability item will be looking at boosting their saves if they're a Wisdom-based caster and increasing the number of spells they get and boosting their save DCs and massively boosting their skill points if it's an Intelligence-based item.
Not saying it shouldn't happen - a 196,000gp item should be powerful. I'm just saying that it's unlikely that Paizo decided to depart from the 3.5e base that drastically, at least on purpose.
At the level that you can afford an item, and again, discounting epic levels for right now, the skill increase is minimal. Even with a +0 in a stat, by 20th level (when you would most likely be buying a 196,000 gp item) and a class skill, you are rolling with a +23.
Really, the big deal here is more spells and a higher DC, but how else can a caster get an equivalent item? Most of the items with excessive costs are just enhancements to weapons, which does a wizard little good. I understand staves and the like, but at that high of a level, with a plus +6 in a stat, the DC on a 9th level spell is only DC 25, but a good save with the same +6 gives you a +18 to resist. That means you only have to roll a 7 to save. Making those saves more likely. Shouldn't a caster be able to have a greater success rate than that?
While I have no dog in this fight, I wanted to chime in one something...
Assuming, hypothetically, a fighter could get a +10 hit/damage with a weapon, that would be mechanically huge (heck, possibly moreso than the +14 headband, which is a net +7, so you're really only looking at about 4 more points than normal).
An additional +5 to hit and damage would more or less assure that the fighter's last iterative attacks connected far more often, would confirm criticals more often, would pierce epic DR, would be multiplied on criticals (adding an additional +5-25 damage per critical), and grant an additional +5 bonus on many combat maneuver checks (including disarming or tripping with certain weapons).
However, all of that is meaningless because...
A weapon can't have an enhancement bonus higher than +5. Use these lines to determine price when special abilities are added in.
EDIT: Also, the +hit alone would greatly increase the fighter's damage per round. Ignoring critical hits, merely landing the third and forth iterative attacks would be an additional 2d8+47 damage on each attack before criticals (8d8+188 on a crit with a weapon mastery polearm for those curious).
While I have no dog in this fight, I wanted to chime in one something...
Assuming, hypothetically, a fighter could get a +10 hit/damage with a weapon, that would be mechanically huge (heck, possibly moreso than the +14 headband, which is a net +7, so you're really only looking at about 4 more points than normal).
An additional +5 to hit and damage would more or less assure that the fighter's last iterative attacks connected far more often, would confirm criticals more often, would pierce epic DR, would be multiplied on criticals (adding an additional +5-25 damage per critical), and grant an additional +5 bonus on many combat maneuver checks (including disarming or tripping with certain weapons).
However, all of that is meaningless because...
A weapon can't have an enhancement bonus higher than +5. Use these lines to determine price when special abilities are added in.
While you can't have a +10 Greatsword, you could have a +5 Frost, Shocking, Flaming, Vicious, Keen Greatsword. So its +5 to hit, and 2d6+4d6(or 5d6 due to vicious), criting from 17-20.
That's correct. I think a lot of people really misunderstand what "enhancement bonus" means. A +5 vorpal longsword is a +10 equivalent weapon with a +5 enhancement bonus. An artifact longsword that was a +6 longsword of speed would also be +10 equivalent but with a +6 enhancement bonus (which incidentally isn't normally possible).
If we publish any item that gives more than a +6 enhancement bonus to an ability score, dollars to donuts that item will be an artifact.
The game itself is written with the assumption that bonuses higher than +6 to an ability score essentially do not exist.
Whether or not you want to exceed that limit in your game is up to you, of course! :-)
Here.If we publish any item that gives more than a +6 enhancement bonus to an ability score, dollars to donuts that item will be an artifact.
The game itself is written with the assumption that bonuses higher than +6 to an ability score essentially do not exist.
Whether or not you want to exceed that limit in your game is up to you, of course! :-)
Hurray for good rulings! I knew Paizo could do it! (Despite their track record of fairly lousy rulings as of late.)
|
Except I believe +6 is max enhancement from a single source.I've never read anything to suggest that.
The items listed in the core rulebook only go up to +6, but never suggest that they cannot be created to have higher bonuses. Also, on the magic item creation table at the end of Ch. 15, it lists the equation for creating items with ability bonuses (bonus squared X 2), but does not list a maximum. Because the maximum value a magic item can have is 200,000gp, a +14 headband of inspired wisdom (196,000gp value) appears complete rules legal.
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/rules/whatIsTheMaximumAbilityEnhancementThatYouCanPutOnAnItem&page=1
wow its almost stupifying how much people mised the point there
heres the point> yall are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay over here.
6 stunning attacks in a round.<<<<. with a save still 6 saves or be stunned in a round. just saying just saying
wow its almost stupifying how much people mised the point there
heres the point> yall are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay over here.
6 stunning attacks in a round.<<<<. with a save still 6 saves or be stunned in a round. just saying just saying
Your a little late, this thread was resolved. The issue was fixed. Any left over arguing is pointless but it is common. :P
Hey, don't forget you applied the Retard template to the dragons. That lowers their CR to 16.
Retard (CR -4)
Quick Rules: Monster ignores it's senses and skills, walks around unbuffed even though it's got a crapload of spell-like abilities, is completely underequipped, and always lets the adventurers get the first shot.
Rebuild Rules: Intelligence drops to 3. Don't recalculate skill points; it's too much of a hassle.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Kirk Lazarus: Everybody knows you never go full retard.
Tugg Speedman: What do you mean?
Kirk Lazarus: Check it out. Dustin Hoffman, 'Rain Man,' look retarded, act retarded, not retarded. Counted toothpicks, cheated cards. Autistic, sho'. Not retarded. You know Tom Hanks, 'Forrest Gump.' Slow, yes. Retarded, maybe. Braces on his legs. But he charmed the pants off Nixon and won a ping-pong competition. That ain't retarded. Peter Sellers, "Being There." Infantile, yes. Retarded, no. You went full retard, man. Never go full retard. You don't buy that? Ask Sean Penn, 2001, "I Am Sam." Remember? Went full retard, went home empty handed...
Kirk Lazarus: Everybody knows you never go full retard.
Tugg Speedman: What do you mean?
Kirk Lazarus: Check it out. Dustin Hoffman, 'Rain Man,' look retarded, act retarded, not retarded. Counted toothpicks, cheated cards. Autistic, sho'. Not retarded. You know Tom Hanks, 'Forrest Gump.' Slow, yes. Retarded, maybe. Braces on his legs. But he charmed the pants off Nixon and won a ping-pong competition. That ain't retarded. Peter Sellers, "Being There." Infantile, yes. Retarded, no. You went full retard, man. Never go full retard. You don't buy that? Ask Sean Penn, 2001, "I Am Sam." Remember? Went full retard, went home empty handed...
+1 Internets to you sir!
I was just myself pondering what kind of self respecting Ancient Gold Dragon walks around still being vulnerable to crits? I mean, honestly.
Dastardly finish is my favorite! Kill many dragons that way!
Maybe the real problem here is Dastardly Finish, and not so much stun. =P
Kirk Lazarus: Everybody knows you never go full retard.
Tugg Speedman: What do you mean?
Kirk Lazarus: Check it out. Dustin Hoffman, 'Rain Man,' look retarded, act retarded, not retarded. Counted toothpicks, cheated cards. Autistic, sho'. Not retarded. You know Tom Hanks, 'Forrest Gump.' Slow, yes. Retarded, maybe. Braces on his legs. But he charmed the pants off Nixon and won a ping-pong competition. That ain't retarded. Peter Sellers, "Being There." Infantile, yes. Retarded, no. You went full retard, man. Never go full retard. You don't buy that? Ask Sean Penn, 2001, "I Am Sam." Remember? Went full retard, went home empty handed...
I KNOW WHO I AM!!!! I'm a dude play'n a dude disguised as another dude! Your the dude don't know what dude he is!
What i am trying to say is, once you allow guns in your campaign, Then the Players are going to want them to improve into more advanced forms. So they can get more shots off, better range, lower misfire chance if not get rid of that outright.
Once firearms enter your game world, then your game world will change.
Spot. Frakking. On.
And this ladies & gents is why I still do not like the idea of guns getting an increased role in either the PFRPG or Golarion.
I'm afraid that once this train leaves the station, it'll be an juggernaught with ever-increasing speed.
i noticed the OP hasn't followed order of the stick.
here is a strategy that allows such high powered dragons to win against just about any foe.
pre combat
gunslinger and rogue are talking about killing dragons and looting thier hordes, the rogue coerces the gunslinger into a wager to see who can kill more dragons.
4 great wyrm gold dragons fly on patrol, overhearing the bet and sound offended at the idea that such greedy mortals would dare contemplate it. these dragons are miffed and send nonverbal cues that they want to teach these fools a lesson
4 great wyrm gold dragons cast antimagic field around themselves, move in to surround the rogue and gunslinger from 5 feet away (adjacent square) in a pincer attack. thier magic items are null and void for the duration and 1d4 rounds after.
rogue and gunslinger roll will saves, they may as well automatically fail horribly due to the fact thier magic items are suppressed and huddle closer together, provoking from the dragons. they are now adjacent to each other and got hit by 2 power attacked attacks of oppurtunity each. the bonus is so high it's likely an autohit. bites are a good choice. they are now panicked and automatically drop thier weapons.
combat starts
round 1
dragons move closer, power attacking biting the pair, autohit, the pair are panicked for 2 more rounds and surrounded, thus denyed any action but cowering in place.
the pair cowers in place
each of the pair recieves 2 full attacks from a dragon, since thier magic items are null and void, their hit points are much lower, as are thier other defenses, both die horribly.
the OP failed to play the dragons to even a portion of thier intellegence.
i corrected the OP's arena scenario to reflect what the dragons would really do.
|
|
i noticed the OP hasn't followed order of the stick.
here is a strategy that allows such high powered dragons to win against just about any foe.
pre combat
gunslinger and rogue are talking about killing dragons and looting thier hordes, the rogue coerces the gunslinger into a wager to see who can kill more dragons.
4 great wyrm gold dragons fly on patrol, overhearing the bet and sound offended at the idea that such greedy mortals would dare contemplate it. these dragons are miffed and send nonverbal cues that they want to teach these fools a lesson
4 great wyrm gold dragons cast antimagic field around themselves, move in to surround the rogue and gunslinger from 5 feet away (adjacent square) in a pincer attack. thier magic items are null and void for the duration and 1d4 rounds after.
rogue and gunslinger roll will saves, they may as well automatically fail horribly due to the fact thier magic items are suppressed and huddle closer together, provoking from the dragons. they are now adjacent to each other and got hit by 2 power attacked attacks of oppurtunity each. the bonus is so high it's likely an autohit. bites are a good choice. they are now panicked and automatically drop thier weapons.
combat starts
round 1
dragons move closer, power attacking biting the pair, autohit, the pair are panicked for 2 more rounds and surrounded, thus denyed any action but cowering in place.
the pair cowers in place
each of the pair recieves 2 full attacks from a dragon, since thier magic items are null and void, their hit points are much lower, as are thier other defenses, both die horribly.
the OP failed to play the dragons to even a portion of thier intellegence.
i corrected the OP's arena scenario to reflect what the dragons would really do.
He already mentioned that the point isn't how the dragons are played or what the dragons would or wouldn't do. The point is that the ability can do this. It is a bit obscene in my opinion and I think this is a good example.
is it really that bad that we have our first martial class with a potential 'I Win' button as a 20th level capstone ability?
most primary casting classes have had 'I Win' buttons since first level.
nobody complains when the first level wizard gets enough 'I Win' buttons to last him a whole day, but everybody throws a hissy fit because a martial class gets an 'I Win' button with no save as a 20th level ability.
that wizard who knows to target a foes weak save may as well have denied the foe a saving throw.
every published monster has one defense signifficantly worse than the others.
Ahn but the possibility of defense is still there the only way to get rid of that one is attack only with undead and other stun immune creatures. frankly if a pc limited me that much id tell him to roll another damn character.
lol i can't believe people are still argueing about the dragons being smart dragon,dinosaur,tarrasque, WHAT have you doesn't matter stun lock auto win. its not about dragosn being dumb or useing tactics. just replace word dragons with another cr20 creature that is less intelligent
lol i can't believe people are still argueing about the dragons being smart dragon,dinosaur,tarrasque, WHAT have you doesn't matter stun lock auto win. its not about dragosn being dumb or useing tactics. just replace word dragons with another cr20 creature that is less intelligent
I can't believe this thread is still active, because it's already been confirmed there will be a save for it.
so what if the gunslinger is rewarded with an 'I Win' button at 20th level after falling further behind for 19 levels?
this isn't even actual playtest data. this is purely tailored arena info. fudged in the gunslinger's favor.
i see this as further picking on a system that broke down back at 12th level. do we really have to rub salt in the systems wounds. CR is not a cure all. the DM actually does have to take the party's ability into account.
and not all monsters are balanced against each other.
a CR 20 isn't much better than a CR 14. just more hit points and a few other mildly bigger numbers. most of which, are not as good as making the fight out of several lower CR monsters.
how do you challenge a guy focused on action denial?
you create more sets of actions than he and his buddies can actually deny.
if Mr. Gary Gunslinger can stun 6 opponents from 100 feet away with only a touch attack. as an at will ability. you don't send so few big monsters.
don't send 4 of these dragons, that will be playing to his strengths. to the point of ruining the fun for the Other PCs.
here is a good example of an EL 24 encounter that will challenge the 20th level gunslinger, his 18th level cohort, his 20th level buddies, and any 18th level cohorts that they might happen to have.
32 astral devas. yes, you can stun 6 of them automatically, but the other 26 will make you suffer. using wolf pack tactics, teamwork feats, and reliable damage.
I can't believe this thread is still active, because it's already been confirmed there will be a save for it.
lol i can't believe people are still argueing about the dragons being smart dragon,dinosaur,tarrasque, WHAT have you doesn't matter stun lock auto win. its not about dragosn being dumb or useing tactics. just replace word dragons with another cr20 creature that is less intelligent
no i complety understand that im just trying to comprehend how people could not see an auto stun as being a problem there is still people aregueing that "the dragons should be smarter then that anyways" i just can't see how they are missing the point. this badly. not its just out of principle. way i see it if you can throw 2 classes aginst each other with similar stats etc. if one will win EVERY time then there not balanced. now if you can throw 6 of the same level aginst one and that one still come on top then theres a larger problem
I can't believe this thread is still active, because it's already been confirmed there will be a save for it.
lol i can't believe people are still argueing about the dragons being smart dragon,dinosaur,tarrasque, WHAT have you doesn't matter stun lock auto win. its not about dragosn being dumb or useing tactics. just replace word dragons with another cr20 creature that is less intelligentno i complety understand that im just trying to comprehend how people could not see an auto stun as being a problem there is still people aregueing that "the dragons should be smarter then that anyways" i just can't see how they are missing the point. this badly. not its just out of principle. way i see it if you can throw 2 classes aginst each other with similar stats etc. if one will win EVERY time then there not balanced. now if you can throw 6 of the same level aginst one and that one still come on top then theres a larger problem
I understand that, sir, but you seem to forget that this is the playtest, and pointing out mistakes like this is the reason behind such playtesting. The point has been made, please let this thread die.
but... but somebody is WRONG on the inteweb!!!!
(ok this is my last post here promise)