|
Where exactly are you getting your data from? What's this mass that you speak of, people that come to these forums? I'm sorry to burst your bubble but the people that come to these forums don't make up the majority I'm afraid. We don't know how many people actually like the XP cost when it came to magic items, you can shout "play test" all you like but there is no evidence that shows the majority of people liked the change. There is also no proof that the peoples feedback would have changed the ruling even if they did like the XP cost.
And ? If people don't express themselves then they have nothing to say in the design process because no one is still able to read someone's mind. There are probably lots of people who still play with XP costs, if that's for the best for them then kudos.
There are probably way much more that don't use them, and it comes from a lot of reading in forums from several gaming websites that shows few people complaining about the change and a lot of others being happy and thankful about it.I don't like 4th edition and I know myself which game works best for and for your information I can swear to you on anything out there that the game was not made with rule exploits in mind. Exploits do not make Pathfinder, or any game for that matter, what it is. There are certain things that do require DM fiat but if you have to revert to Rule 0 in order to balance a game rule then there is a problem that needs to be looked at.
Oh yeah, level 20 exploits are so bad for my health and require so much fiat it isn't fun, I can sympathize. Sheesh, when my player said he got a way to cheese a wand of infinite wishes, I didn't see it coming... come on.
Your complain came from a ridiculous thing that doesn't work or would never be accepted by any sane DM (wand of wishes) ; and from the fact a level 20 alchemist gains a RP plot hook that can only end badly for him and not be exploited in any coherent universe.If I were designing a game I sure as hell wouldn't have some of you speaking on my behalf. Exploits should be fixed not told they are what makes the game what it is because that makes the game sound like crap.
We're still waiting for REAL exploits, if you've got some to share. You know, some that don't involve being level 20 and having a dumb DM to eventually break the game. And that's not like a vanilla high-level core wizard with XP costs cannot ruin a game with the appropriate spells at the appropriate time.
By the way, Paizo asked people like us to help reviewing and giving feedback during their design process, and they are now the most succesfull d20 RPG company out there. If you feel like the game sounds like crap because imbalance is imprinted into the system, I invite you to read again the two links I posted previously, and houserule or find another game system to your convenance. Complaining here has approximately 0% chance to officially bring the XP cost infamy back.
Where is the DM in all of this? Exploits only exist in PnP games because a DM allows them. If the item is to powerful, the DM doesn't allow it, plain and simple.
The basic rule of all PnP RPGs is that the DM makes the rules. Every RPG worth its salt tell players that at the very beggining. The rules are a guildline, its up to the DM to say what goes and what doesn't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
God I thought this thread died days ago.
Shallowsoul feels one way (IMO he is wrong)
The rest of the universe* feels another.
Can't this just end?
*"The rest of the universe" may have 1 or 2 others that agree with him...... But not many.
God I thought this thread died days ago.
Shallowsoul feels one way (IMO he is wrong)
The rest of the universe* feels another.
Can't this just end?
*"The rest of the universe" may have 1 or 2 others that agree with him...... But not many.
Pretty much. Further, the socially venomous responses aren't helping his credibility, nor his case. When I read such things I ask myself "what the heck is this person trying to achieve by saying that?" Words should have purpose toward some goal. For example, this paragraph builds rapport with the majority, while also hi-lighting some concerns with his communication method. With any luck, he'll also read this and re-examine his approach. Win-win for all.
I only wish he responded to my post about the Commoner with 1 rank in Craft-woodworker being able to achieve EXACTLY the same result as all the "abuses" he uses to back up his claim, requiring merely more time to achieve that result... even if XP costs are part of the game. When you toss out rule 0 and include absurd dependencies like "unbounded" and "infinite", you're arguing a senseless case, right out the gate.
I think you've been playing in the Far Realm too long, most forms of logic there don't make sense and this is no different.
I never said anything about being able to close all loopholes 100% but this was a method that did work and was removed.
So for you, the game needs to be broken in order for it to do what you want it to do? I see what type of player you are.
Far Realm? Care to elaborate on what that means exactly?
What I am saying is, to most people who play the game, xp costs were a negative thing. Paizo agreed and removed them. The lack of xp costs is only a problem in very specific kinds of games. For those who do not like the idea of unrestricted casting, paizo staff have offered potential rational solutions.
The xp cost didnt work, it put a penalty on using a basic ability of one of the 4 original classes. That isn't good design. It doesn't make sense from a flavor perspective on what xp is meant to be, or how the devs view the spirit of the rules. So they changed it, and most people are happy with it. Has it created other problems? Yes, but all of those can be solved readily with things that are well within the dm's rights and powers in a game. Heck you can simply disallow the feats if they bother you.
I am not saying the game needs to be broken, I am saying that keeping the world coherent and rational is more important then perfect balance. Someone losing experience (as stated above) for spending time working on magic makes no sense. XP loss was a dissociative mechanic. Including as few of these as possible is a design goal for pathfinder. Paizo fully expects dms to houserule the game to suit their group and their needs and even offer help in doing so.
For my group, crafting was completely unused in previous editions of the game due to the xp cost, and in current games its used extremely infrequently because of time constraints in adventures. In the game i am running (my group has multiple games running at once with different dms) I have dispensed with it entirely with a set of house rules for wealth and magic items.
As for what kind of player I am, I actually dm alot more then I play. And what kind of player I am is one that doesnt look for exploits and when I find them I dont use them. I work with my dm if I think there is a grey area in the rules, and I work to create a game world and a story that we will all have fun with.
I know I never did any item crafting when there were XP costs involved, other than an occasional scroll.
Heck, I still haven't done a LOT of crafting, because who has the time? But I'm willing to consider crafting this or that item now, since I won't be dropping behind the rest of my party (as long as I can convince them to hold off on that dungeon-crawl while I make [whatever]).
I'm with what I think is the majority: getting rid of XP costs was a Good Thing. It's not like gold and time are nothing -- but they're not the penalty for being creative that the XP costs were.
My 2 cp.
Director of Games
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey there Everyone,
Wow, this thread has some odd snark in it. I am going to leave aside the issue with abusive item invention for just a moment and tell you the reason why I pulled these costs from the game. First.. a side trek... sorta...
When we were redesigning some elements of the game, one that we took a look at was the XP progression chart. The 3.5 chart was not open content and we wanted a progression that allowed for simpler design without having to cross reference a chart to figure out how much XP a monster was worth relative to the group. After a few drafts and a lot of reverse engineering, we came up with the charts you see today.
One thing you might notice.. the xp values balloon up quite quickly. We liked this fact, it made it feel a bit more epic when your high level PCs got 80,000xp for an adventure.
Now, back to the point at hand... when it came to XP costs, the existing system MIC system, combined with the reworked charts, meant that the XP costs quickly became mostly irrelevant to higher level characters and after a bit of math, it was mostly irrelevant in the old system too, except in the odd case where the spellcaster was a game behind in leveling with the rest of the group. This "cost" was hardly worth the effort. The real cost here is the feat and time costs, which we kept.
That is pretty much it. I really dont want to come back to all the snark I have seen in this thread. Play nice folks...
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
|
|
Hey there Everyone,
Wow, this thread has some odd snark in it. I am going to leave aside the issue with abusive item invention for just a moment and tell you the reason why I pulled these costs from the game. First.. a side trek... sorta...
When we were redesigning some elements of the game, one that we took a look at was the XP progression chart. The 3.5 chart was not open content and we wanted a progression that allowed for simpler design without having to cross reference a chart to figure out how much XP a monster was worth relative to the group. After a few drafts and a lot of reverse engineering, we came up with the charts you see today.
One thing you might notice.. the xp values balloon up quite quickly. We liked this fact, it made it feel a bit more epic when your high level PCs got 80,000xp for an adventure.
Now, back to the point at hand... when it came to XP costs, the existing system MIC system, combined with the reworked charts, meant that the XP costs quickly became mostly irrelevant to higher level characters and after a bit of math, it was mostly irrelevant in the old system too, except in the odd case where the spellcaster was a game behind in leveling with the rest of the group. This "cost" was hardly worth the effort. The real cost here is the feat and time costs, which we kept.
That is pretty much it. I really dont want to come back to all the snark I have seen in this thread. Play nice folks...
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Abstract XP is something that is available in this game, it's on page 399 of the corebook. Now, what's wrong with using abstract XP to bring the creator of items back in line with the others? Since the creator would be behind in XP common sense would tell you that they deserve a little more XP. By using this method along with the XP cost you not only stop item creation abuse but you also eliminate the "falling behind." There are ways to accumulate mass amounts of gold by using little tricks here and there. It's easier to make items with a gold limit than it is with a gold and XP limit. Before you had to pay gold and XP. You could only spend so much XP until you topped out at the beginning of your level.
Creating high level items used to eat up experience like crazy so you were limited to what you could make, along with the gold costs.
XP costs were always relevant in our high level games, it kept item creation, Wish, Miracle and other type spells in check.
Change is good when it's something that needs to be changed but change for the sake of change is not.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So what you want, shallowsoul, is for all of us to be required to use this system too? No, thank you.
I was always able to craft at just the right time to actually move ahead of other players in XP progression, since in 3.5 you got more XP the lower level you were. So if you crafted just enough to keep you behind the rest of the party right before a big series of encounters, you could effectively surpass the rest of the group in XP. Then you could use the bonus XP to craft more items and repeat the scenario.
There was never a disadvantage to using XP in 3.5, if you took advantage of the math.
|
Director of Games
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
The XP costs in the old system topped out at about 4,000xp for a 200,000gp item, which is pretty paltry to a high level character that needs 500,000xp to get their next level (especially considering the time requirements). We did, at one point in time, consider a complicated scaling system to keep the xp costs and keep them relevant, but it was just more trouble than its worth. The MIC system is already convoluted and open to abuse without careful monitoring by an active GM.
In the end, we decided that the sort of "fake" cost paid to make items and cast spells was simply not worth the design space for the payout it was supposed to simulate.
XP costs for spells and magic items will not be coming back. If you feel you need them for your game, by all means, add them back in, but they will not be returning to the core mechanics.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
XP costs for spells and magic items will not be coming back. If you feel you need them for your game, by all means, add them back in, but they will not be returning to the core mechanics.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Um, yay?! 'N'stuff.
Srsly, much better this way (not that you need MY approval, but you certainly HAVE it).
|
There are ways to accumulate mass amounts of gold by using little tricks here and there. It's easier to make items with a gold limit than it is with a gold and XP limit. Before you had to pay gold and XP. You could only spend so much XP until you topped out at the beginning of your level.
Creating high level items used to eat up experience like crazy so you were limited to what you could make, along with the gold costs.
XP costs were always relevant in our high level games, it kept item creation, Wish, Miracle and other type spells in check.
Concerning item creations (and those "mass amounts of gold"), there is a very nice thing in the CRB called Wealth By Level. Problem solved.
The XP costs were only a penalty if you were not able to game them, which was quite easy once you figured out the numbers. They did not balance anything and were actually a tool used by optimizers.
I am sorry, but your whole premise of XP costs balancing mechanics stands on hollow feet, because that was simply not the case.
I am in with the happy-that-they-are-gone-crowd. They were metagamey, disassociated and not useful for their intended role anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How does one implement that, in game? "Sorry, you can't make that item unless you give a bunch of gold to charity first." Seems like 1st class metagameage.
Concerning item creations (and those "mass amounts of gold"), there is a very nice thing in the CRB called Wealth By Level. Problem solved.
By limmiting the ammount of wealth that the GM gives to the players. All of the money the players get is through the GM. If the GM goes against the guidelines presented in the wbl, then he really has no right to complain.
Magic item creation does not increase the available wealth the players have. It improves the distrobution of the wealth that they already have into areas they are more concerned about.
I would only use the more restrictive magic item creation for the more powerful stuff, in any large city finding the ingredients needed to create items up to 50,000gp should be doable, you might need to make some contacts to actually acquire the items needed. But that is cool for role-playing right? Gives players reasons to make contacts in their home cities. Skill checks and diplomacy checks, now if you're into the high combat, low RP system, don't do it.
It's not for everyone, but nothing is, that's why so many GMs have their own house-rules.
|
Show me RAW, where it states the approximate XP an NPC actually has not what it's worth if you kill it.
Tables 14-1 through 14-5 and then cross reference to Table 3-1 (all in the core rules)? Between the two you have NPC level and XP requirements for any given level. If you really want that kind of info for an NPC, that would be your best bet.
As to the other points, a little bit of advice. When debating a point, especially a rule point, and providing examples, make sure the examples are legal in and of themselves. (i.e. - the wish staff ... yes I know it was from a different thread ... yes I know you later clarified you were of the opinion it was not doable ... but you did use it as an example to support the removal of the XP rule as being a bad thing)
Secondly, when debating, you have a much better chance of convincing people of the merit of your arguments when you respond civilly; snark does nothing to further your argument.
Third, if having an XP cost mechanic in place for item creation is that important to you, put it in place in your game. To save you the trouble of hunting it down (as that did appear to be a concern in one of your previous posts), you can find them here.
Bottom line is this: the vast majority of posters in this thread support the removal of the XP cost mechanic and the developers have actually responded to your post and explained why they removed it. You will not convince them to change it back (sorry, but this is true). But this is NOT A BAD THING.
This game (as well as those that came before and those that will come after) are easily modified to meet the needs and/or desires of whatever playstyle you want to play. So just go play however you want to play it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can't justify something with the "not making sense" excuse because it's a poor one. Magic item creation and essence of the creator has been in fantasy for a long long time.
Lies and slander. In fact, pre-3E you actually gained experience points for crafting magic items.
I'm in the process of arguing right now about a 20th level build that can make a Staff of Wish that contains 60+ wishes a day.Well that argument has an easy RAW solution - just don't allow the staff. GMs have to approve any custom-designed magic item. Just tell the player "heck no!" and move on.
If they are using the forumlas in the CRB, throw this at them:
Not all items adhere to these formulas. First and foremost, these few formulas aren't enough to truly gauge the exact differences between items. The price of a magic item may be modified based on its actual worth. The formulas only provide a starting point.Even going by that chart, what is basically described here is a unlimited charges wish spell trigger item, which would run 17*9*1500+50*25000=about 1.5 million gp. It would also rapidly become the most sought after item on the planet.
How in the world can fabricate help with magic item crafting? You explicitly can't use it for magic items.
Until it got hit with dispel magic + shatter. Ooooh, what a waste of about double a 20th level PC's WBL. So sad.
EDIT: Not to mention that wish isn't half as uber as it used to be. No longer can you create money or magic items with it, so it basically just becomes a staff of "8th level and lower spells with some exceptions being 7th, or 6th". Cute, but I wouldn't burn the time more money to craft it.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now, now, Ashiel.
The storyline of casters pouring their souls into an item to make it magical is a tried and true trope in fantasy fiction. Read the very first Drizz't book...Bruenor does it to create Aegis-fang. The process of magic item creation drained a point of CONSTITUTION in the old system...you got xp, but you gave up your very life essence.
So, in reply to SKR's comment...yes, the wizard who poured his xp into an item to make it magical is weaker then the wizard who did not do this...but he's got a magical item. The other guy has a bladder full of used ale.
From a STORY standpoint, xp for magic item construction is just a substitution for COnstitution for magic item construction. The latter was a much, much harder hit, effectively limiting the number of magic items you would make in your entire life to 1 or 2 (barring potions, scrolls and chargeables).
Now, the 3E xp tables were 1000 xp/level, cumulative, i.e. 9k xp to go from 9th to 10th. Costs for magical items were actually fairly good at that xp cost.
Using Paizo numbers, xp costs make no sense at all, because adventuring xp outstrips them so fast. You can get a million xp for offing a CR 25 encounter. That's 100 Wishes, paid for in one encounter
=========================
FOr those who didn't look for it, the 60 Wishes/day staff works like this:
Sorceror, level 20, arcane apotheseis...use 3 spell levels to sub for a charge on a staff.
Make a Staff of Wish. Cost is ~1.23 million. But, that cost can be made in diamonds by being a diamond crafter. Go out and buy 410K gp of raw diamonds. Put on a headband of intellect +2, attuned skill Craft (jeweler).
Cast Fabricate on your pile of 410k gp raw diamonds.
BOOM. By the crafting rules, you have now instantly created 1.23 million in polished, perfectly cut diamonds and diamond dust...the material comps for your wishes.
The staff is now paid for. You spend the next three years actually making the bloody thing...or, if you use the crafting rules, the actual cost is 400 gp x 9th level spell x 17th level caster, or 61,200 gp. I don't believe the diamond cost actually counts towards construction time on the staff, but I could well be mistaken.
As a sorceror with Arcane Apotheseis, you can now spend any spell slot of level 3 or higher to pay for a Wish from your Staff. This uses no charges from the staff and requires no more material components.
That's 60 or so wishes a day.
You can cut the cost in half by making each wish 2 charges, but that limits you to 30 or so wishes a day. Even making a wish cost 3 charges just restricts you to ten wishes for no gold. You'll end up making all your gold back after 50 wishes, and then you're in positive territory.
==Aelryinth
Now, now, Ashiel.
The storyline of casters pouring their souls into an item to make it magical is a tried and true trope in fantasy fiction. Read the very first Drizz't book...Bruenor does it to create Aegis-fang. The process of magic item creation drained a point of CONSTITUTION in the old system...you got xp, but you gave up your very life essence.
So, in reply to SKR's comment...yes, the wizard who poured his xp into an item to make it magical is weaker then the wizard who did not do this...but he's got a magical item. The other guy has a bladder full of used ale.
Actually, only permanent magic items (not charged, one use, etc so potions cost nothing but gold/time) had the chance of Con loss.
And the cost was 10% of time 1 Con damage, not 100%. So out of ten magic items made you lose 1 con on average.
Casting Permanency to make a magic item cost a Point of Con in AD&D. They alleviated it in later editions.
And you'll note I said chargeables didn't count later in my post! No Permanency, no Con cost = charged item (potion, scroll, staff, wand, etc)
Of course, there's a LOT you can do with consumables, of course.
===Aelryinth
When I heard in 3rd Ed that it COST you XP to make items I had a good laugh, best one in ages.
Then I worked out my friends were serious.
I laughed harder.
What a ridiculous concept, and how punitive against one type of player (ie Craftsmen).
Glad to hear that it wont be returning.
"Pouring your life force into an magical item you're making" is a standard fantasy trope. "Making a magic item requires pouring your life force into it" certainly is not. Permanent or long-term detriments to your health for crafting something might be appropriate for an off-beat and maybe evil-ish (or martyr-ish) -alternate- crafting system, or perhaps a baseline assumption for an unusually grim campaign setting - that many magical things took a part of their creator with them endows magic items with a certain eerieness - but it's hardly a baseline fantasy thing.
|
|
"Pouring your life force into an magical item you're making" is a standard fantasy trope. "Making a magic item requires pouring your life force into it" certainly is not. Permanent or long-term detriments to your health for crafting something might be appropriate for an off-beat and maybe evil-ish (or martyr-ish) -alternate- crafting system, or perhaps a baseline assumption for an unusually grim campaign setting - that many magical things took a part of their creator with them endows magic items with a certain eerieness - but it's hardly a baseline fantasy thing.
It's kind of funny how "pouring ones life force" into a magic item they created was okay and has been around in fantasy novels for a long time and suddenly when a few people decide to leave it out of a game it suddenly makes sense and now puring XP "life force" into something is considered dumb or evil.
So if they make rules on how great a pile of poo is it suddenly becomes this great thing?
Magic Items creation has always been something that was special, pouring ones essence into it made it special because you gave up a part of yourself to create something that was fantastic. Not everyone would want to give up their own essence so creating items was rare. Now it's just a matter of forking over the dough. Thanks guys for taking the "specialness" out of magic items.
"Pouring your life force into an magical item you're making" is a standard fantasy trope. "Making a magic item requires pouring your life force into it" certainly is not. Permanent or long-term detriments to your health for crafting something might be appropriate for an off-beat and maybe evil-ish (or martyr-ish) -alternate- crafting system, or perhaps a baseline assumption for an unusually grim campaign setting - that many magical things took a part of their creator with them endows magic items with a certain eerieness - but it's hardly a baseline fantasy thing.It's kind of funny how "pouring ones life force" into a magic item they created was okay and has been around in fantasy novels for a long time and suddenly when a few people decide to leave it out of a game it suddenly makes sense and now puring XP "life force" into something is considered dumb or evil.
You're exactly missing the point. "Menacing orcs are a threat to border towns" is a fantasy trope. It's found in tons of books, probably every book with orcs. "Every threat to border towns is a menacing orc" is not a standard fantasy trope. That's why I said that lifeforce crafting would be appropriate for an alternate crafting system, and gave suggestions of places where it would be especially appropriate. "It is possible to make magic items by pouring your lifeforce into them" and "making magic items requires pouring your lifeforce into them" are wildly different statements, and the fact that the first one is a fantasy staple doesn't change the fact that the second one is a pretty niche thing that sounds very setting-specific.
But you don't have to craft everything. If you are going to sit there and craft and craft and craft then there should be repercussions.The wizard who takes a day off to make a big scroll ends up LESS experienced with magic than the wizard who takes a day off to get drunk. That doesn't make sense.
In my own experience;
I've picked up more "experience" on days I took off drinking than days I spent debating on online forums.Sorry couldn't resist. ; )
I'm glad they're gone generally. I've personally kept it for Wish and Miracle, but it doesn't come up much. I have an actual lawyer at my table, he can out outwish me everytime with virtually no chance of me or Gerry subverting the intent.
Pouring ones life force into the item?
Fine, lose 1 Con or age 1d4 years or something.
Has nothing to do with XP.
XP is a renewable resource, if you feel you want to be so true to the trope then you go right ahead and go the whole way and sign up to something meaningfull - otherwise its just a stupid tax on top of all the other taxes.
The 'specialness' is all taken out because you think 'specialness' is a game mechanic. Search elsewhere for specialness, because you wont find it in a rulebook.
I for one think you should not be able to construct a magic item like a ring until you cut off the extra extremity that could use one, like your other hand. Granted, this does make helmets difficult to make.
ROFL
Glutton,
Make that, 'cut off someone ELSE'S extremity that could... etc.' and you've got a deal.
Lemme just dig out my Book of Vile Darkness...
:)
Well the crafting of a Ring of Marriage apparently involves cutting off a pair of vitally important body parts, so there's precedent.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well this is fun...
XP costs were basically a clumsy mechanic that was more trouble than it was worth. Most peoples objections to certain rules come about from mechanical issues especially if those mechanics do not appear anywhere else. This is the case here.
A few points based on things people have said:
1) Most groups do not get to 15th level, let alone 20th. Both WotC and Paizo have done a lot of research into this and have found that this is a cold hard fact. High level material just does not sell in the same quantities as low level stuff.
2) This game isn't balanced, especially at high levels. Personally I think that things are balanced enough that it doesn't matter too much but you do find people who disagree on that point. They have that right and I respect that. Maybe you should try thinking the same way?
3) Just because something can be done doesn't mean that it should be done. We have heard a lot about GM's not allowing a player to do X when really the point is that a player should mitigate his own behavior. At my table my players have found powerful combos that often make the game a breeze. At that point they have voluntarily given up these combos because they want the game to be a challenge. This should be the attitude of a good player, an enjoyable game only comes about when players cooperate with their GM's.
4) Pathfinder makes zero sense when you examine it. Powerful people can fall from orbit with few repercussions, tribes of 10 tonne, 30 foot tall humanoids wander around without negatively impacting their local ecosystems, master alchemists and brewers take months to brew a single dose of poison. I could go on. Don't try to apply logic to Pathfinder, it doesn't work and nor should it.
5) I have had the pleasure of meeting both James Jacobs and Sean K Reynolds at Gen Con last year and they are both very nice guys. Hell, James Jacobs even listened to me (a bald, fat Welshman) whitter on about Pathfinder for a good half hour. That practically makes him a saint in my books. They post regularly on this board as a courtesy to the community and that is laudable. It is a privilege to get feedback direct from the developers themselves and frankly this doesn't happen much in other walks of life.
So as a courtesy to them I for one would appreciate it if you didn't treat them with obvious disrespect. Thanks.
6) The point was made that there may well be hordes of players who are annoyed by the changes made in Pathfinder. This may be true. We may have a silent majority who long for a return to the days of XP costs for spells and crafting. And y'know what? Nuts to them.
When Pathfinder first came out there was a massive playtest of the system which anybody could contribute to and pass comment upon. Ever since then every major release they have done has been accompanied by yet more playtesting. If you want to pass comment on any aspect of the direction of Pathfinder that is the time. Paizo listens to these playtests, they really do, and decisions and changes get made based on this feedback. If there truly is a seething mass of discontented gamers then they should speak up because, just like politics, decisions get made by those who turn up.
7) As a final point, Shallowsoul, you asked a question of the Paizo community who have given you an answer which I will sum up here:
XP costs were removed because the designers felt that they made little sense, penalized crafters and spellcasters unfairly and would take too much work to implement given the new XP structure that Pathfinder adopted. After putting the idea out to the community nobody objected so a change was made.
In all the years that Pathfinder has been in print you are the first to object to it. The consensus is against you but you are in luck because:
Our opinion doesn't matter
It is your game. There is nothing stopping you running it exactly as you want it to be. So what that we disagree with you? If you change the rule to suit your game the SWAT team of the rules police isn't going to smash down your door and take your dice away. We all dislike the rule but that doesn't make us right, it's just our opinion.
And here's the thing. You are not going to change anyone's mind here. No one is going to change the rule back. Just accept that. It's just a game, a fun diversion to be had with friends. Don't give yourself an ulcer over it.
There are plenty of things to get angry about. XP costs in Pathfinder (or a lack thereof) is not one of them.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Magic Items creation has always been something that was special, pouring ones essence into it made it special because you gave up a part of yourself to create something that was fantastic. Not everyone would want to give up their own essence so creating items was rare. Now it's just a matter of forking over the dough. Thanks guys for taking the "specialness" out of magic items.
If things keep going this way, pretty soon demihumans will be able to reach any level and dwarves will cast arcane spells.
Magic Items creation has always been something that was special, pouring ones essence into it made it special because you gave up a part of yourself to create something that was fantastic. Not everyone would want to give up their own essence so creating items was rare. Now it's just a matter of forking over the dough. Thanks guys for taking the "specialness" out of magic items.If things keep going this way, pretty soon demihumans will be able to reach any level and dwarves will cast arcane spells.
Dogs and cats living together! Madness! Madness I say!
And add me as the +1 to NO XP costs. Never had item crafters until that rule was removed, and I've not had problems with my group there after. So yeah, I like what the devs said.
Rule 0 shouldn't be needed to fix RAW.
You seriously have no idea how amused I am at this particular idea.
Rule 0 IS RAW.
Page 9 of the Core Rulebook, under the heading "The Most Important Rule."
This idea you've conjectured up that rule 0 isn't part of the core rules is silly. If the DM rules something, it automatically becomes RAW, and the paragraph on pg 9 proves it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So what you want, shallowsoul, is for all of us to be required to use this system too? No, thank you.I for one would appreciate a response to this, shallowsoul.
This is like talking to 3.5Loyalist all over again.
I don't think Shallowsoul is talking about his own games, I think that he's talking about wanting to win an online argument.
I find that's the origin of a lot of heated RAW discussion threads.
In that case I rule you shall all give me $10 (or local equivilent) per session the money to be used to purchase pizza's, drinks and other snacks decided by the group on the night.Rule 0 shouldn't be needed to fix RAW.You seriously have no idea how amused I am at this particular idea.
Rule 0 IS RAW.
Page 9 of the Core Rulebook, under the heading "The Most Important Rule."This idea you've conjectured up that rule 0 isn't part of the core rules is silly. If the DM rules something, it automatically becomes RAW, and the paragraph on pg 9 proves it.
Ya know, in my experience, it's hard enough to find a person capable and willing enough to actually be the GM that this sounds like a totally worthwhile cost. I'm in! xD