Hey, here's a spiffy notion: let's those of us who are happy without XP costs stop posting on this thread.
And, yeah, I DO like getting the last word...
But, rilly, all we're doing here is feeding some ego, and of somebody we disagree with, to boot. Let's let the thread die.
(S)o 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.
Are you kidding? I don't think you realize how ridiculously uber that would be for said Arcane Sorcerer! Drop any 3rd or higher spell slot to cast any 8th or lower spell that exists?
What has two thumbs and doesn't care about that "spells known" chart anymore? ;)
High-epic level thief is a higher level, and can't instant-metamagic. Not to mention how many wands/staves/etc he/she'd have to have to actually cover that many potential spells, and the fact that they, unlike said sorcerer, will eventually run out of charges. ;)
edit - And since the GM in question was obviously okay with the creation of the staff, they'd probably be okay if you used your last spellslot-turned wish to wish for the benefits of a full 8 hours sleep. 60+ spells a day? Try WAY more than that. xD
and crafting something you can sell at a profit does increase the available wealth.
Something most people seem to forget: You can only sell your items if your DM says you can find a buyer.
"Trying to sell that +2 Longsword, eh? Well, I'd like to buy it off ye, but just look at that wall, filled to the brim with weapons just like it! Seems I've got no need. Better luck elsewhere, friend."
and crafting something you can sell at a profit does increase the available wealth.Something most people seem to forget: You can only sell your items if your DM says you can find a buyer.
"Trying to sell that +2 Longsword, eh? Well, I'd like to buy it off ye, but just look at that wall, filled to the brim with weapons just like it! Seems I've got no need. Better luck elsewhere, friend."Sure, except that's not consistent w/ how the magic shop rules actually work, so you have to metagame hose the PC. With a 75% chance of every possible item below a town's wealth limit being in stock, the shop has ~75 items per possible 100 (and that's a big number even in a fairly small town...each cantrip, each 1st level spell scroll (arcane and divine) each potion...each weapon, in 2 sizes, in various materials...)
And with a 75% chance of each item being there again next week, that's ~40 items (per hundred) transacting each week. If the store has "too many" +2 longswords...wait a week.
It's actually pretty tough to model accumulating more than a couple of a given item, given the turnovers implicit in the rules.
It's easy. It's just one of those "rule 0" things. As long as you're at your WBL, you won't find anyone to buy your things for [insert whatever reason the DM wants to use.]
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have noticed a trend on these boards. More than once a poster dislikes a certain rule asks the Paizo devs for clarfication then when the devs respond espcially if it's not in their favor get angry or upset. I just don't get that. While I might disagree with person opinion I can respect them not liking or agreeing with a rule.
I do find it extremely disrespectful when after the dev has responded to a rules question to basically tell them that their wrong no matter what they say. Or that their explanation is wron because it does not match what you wanted to hear. Seriously you don't tell the people who created the game their wrong on their own rules unless their factually wrong. If you already have your mind made up on a rule, topic or subject and nothing is going to change that why even psot on any forum. Seems like a waste of time and nothing more than an excuse to increase a personal post count.
And no I don't like Xp costs for crafting items.
I think the point, in this context, is that a rule system model that requires a metagame "course correction" must be a FLAWED model.
Emphasis mine.
I don't think "metagame" means what you think it means in this context.
The very existence of the WBL table creates the need for a metagame course correction, as WBL charts the metagame course. That's actually what it does, by definition; metagame. I daresay you cannot have a "rule system model" without precisely that: conditions for metagame course correction. They are more or less synonymous.
Now, the GM does have a choice, by the rules, to let the players overflow WBL and thereby adjust the APL. Heck, the GM needn't even adjust the APL if her intention is for APL=CR encounters to be easy. Those are both good options, and I've used them.
But if you're trying to tell me the game is broken because the encounter balance metrics will sometimes inform the GM that the party is too powerful for a fixed CR, and that the rules should somehow prevent this from ever happening instead of merely reporting it's occurrence... then I suspect you don't understand the reason that encounter-balance metrics exist.
These things aren't here to constrain the GM — they exist so that the GM understands the party's relative power compared to a fixed CR. The "course correction" you posit in the above quote is an option for GMs who want to simplify the comparative math. It's no more "necessary" for parties to be at a certain APL than it is for a GM to always use a CR equal to APL — that is to say, it is not necessary, and shouldn't be done exclusively.
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.
Eh, the context is using WBL to control item creation, not treasure handed out in adventures, and crafting something you can sell at a profit does increase the available wealth.
How do you sell at a profit without the GM's permission? Crafting requires time and raw resources. The example above uses fabricate, so we can get rid of the time requirement. But it still requires raw resources, which requires the players to get them from somewhere, which requires the GM to provide the players with that. If you want to conver it into cash, it requires people who can give you that cash, which requires the GM to provide it to the players. The GM has control over how much wealth the players can get.
I mean, the staff mentioned requires 410K in uncut diamonds. Do the players own a few mines to get that many? After they bought up every one available on the open market, how many enemies did they make, and how have they inflated the price? I mean, other people have to want them for spell components too. Trade guilds don't want players screwing with their buisness, and do you think jewler's guilds are weak? Market saturation will make it so players can no longer sell at full prices if they want to recollect their money, while their demand will cause a spike in the price so they have to pay more than the 410K.
Its the GM's job to make the world respond to the player's actions. If the players are breaking the economy, there are people in the world who have a vested interest in not letting them do it and the world doesn't necessarily want what they are making or have what they need.
and crafting something you can sell at a profit does increase the available wealth.Something most people seem to forget: You can only sell your items if your DM says you can find a buyer.
"Trying to sell that +2 Longsword, eh? Well, I'd like to buy it off ye, but just look at that wall, filled to the brim with weapons just like it! Seems I've got no need. Better luck elsewhere, friend."Sure, except that's not consistent w/ how the magic shop rules actually work, so you have to metagame hose the PC. With a 75% chance of every possible item below a town's wealth limit being in stock, the shop has ~75 items per possible 100 (and that's a big number even in a fairly small town...each cantrip, each 1st level spell scroll (arcane and divine) each potion...each weapon, in 2 sizes, in various materials...)
And with a 75% chance of each item being there again next week, that's ~40 items (per hundred) transacting each week. If the store has "too many" +2 longswords...wait a week.
It's actually pretty tough to model accumulating more than a couple of a given item, given the turnovers implicit in the rules.
Before you complain about GMs not following the rules, perhaps you should use rules that don't start with:
The following guidelines are presented to help GMs determine what items are available in a given community. These guidelines assume a setting with an average level of magic. Some cities might deviate wildly from these baselines, subject to GM discretion.
Before you complain about GMs not following the rules, perhaps you should use rules that don't start with:
I haven't complained about GM's not following the rules. I don't know what any GM's are or are not doing. Nor do I care what any GM's are or not doing.
I'm just discussing the rules model. Obviously anyone is free to use it or not. Pointing that out isn't necessary and has no bearing on the discussion OF THE MODEL.
No model will work for every game. Pointing out that people can go out of their way to break a model does nothing, especially when the model starts off with saying that it is just a guideline for the GM to intelligently apply to their game.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Before you complain about GMs not following the rules, perhaps you should use rules that don't start with:
The following guidelines are presented to help GMs determine what items are available in a given community. These guidelines assume a setting with an average level of magic. Some cities might deviate wildly from these baselines, subject to GM discretion.I haven't complained about GM's not following the rules. I don't know what any GM's are or are not doing. Nor do I care what any GM's are or not doing.
I'm just discussing the rules model. Obviously anyone is free to use it or not. Pointing that out isn't necessary and has no bearing on the discussion OF THE MODEL.
Except that the statement is part of the rules model you are wanting to discuss. GM discretion is an inherent part of that model and must be taken into account. You cannot pick and choose to suit the needs of your arguement. If you want to discuss the model, you must address all aspects of it. To do otherwise is disingenuous.
|
The way I look at it right now, would be like asking the Summoner if he would please hold back because he's doing too much damage. You shouldn't have to go that route, make some kind of correction.
It's things like this that started killing 3.5. Those that worked on the game at that time didn't seem to check all the rules together to make sure there weren't things that were broken. There are ways to fix things without having to rely on GM fiat.
|
|
The way I look at it right now, would be like asking the Summoner if he would please hold back because he's doing too much damage. You shouldn't have to go that route, make some kind of correction.
It's things like this that started killing 3.5. Those that worked on the game at that time didn't seem to check all the rules together to make sure there weren't things that were broken. There are ways to fix things without having to rely on GM fiat.
The summoner being potentially OP, even by reading and applying the rules right, is the only argument I'll have to agree with and still wish for some revision on the natural attack spam builds. That is true : they are often asked to hold back when they are allowed in a game - something that becomes less and less common. And we shouldn't have to.
But that isn't some kind of novelty. And honestly, *one* real stain on several years of selling Pathfinder RPG isn't proof of bad design, though I agree that the most balanced content we get (despite the "we don't make everything able to stand on it's own" policy), even if it requires errata later, the most happy I am. Pathfinder tends to hit (too) low on the design balance curve to avoid any OP exploits.* Wise raptor *
On the other hand, if everything was perfect, how could I have fun revisiting archetypes ?
I'm missing where the WBL turned into stone tablets from on high, demarcating the absolute limits of accumulation?
I thought that was a guide for making characters that start higher than 1st level, not a mandate to chop off total value based on level...
I mean, I'm not asserting that wealth should be limitless... I just keep seeing everyone referring to WBL as holy writ, which I didn't think it was.
EDIT: DAMN, I posted on this thread again... forgot what it was, got drawn in by somebody's comments...
I mean, the staff mentioned requires 410K in uncut diamonds. Do the players own a few mines to get that many? After they bought up every one available on the open market, how many enemies did they make, and how have they inflated the price? I mean, other people have to want them for spell components too. Trade guilds don't want players screwing with their buisness, and do you think jewler's guilds are weak? Market saturation will make it so players can no longer sell at full prices if they want to recollect their money, while their demand will cause a spike in the price so they have to pay more than the 410K.
I'd tend to make people wanting that much of a finite (on planet) resource go hit up the elemental plane of Earth to find enough diamonds... not that I'd ever let anyone craft a magic item to spam wishes... even the nerfy wishes in PF.
;)
Well, Chobe, I see what you're saying, at least.
I disagree, but it's a rational enough viewpoint if you believe the GM ought to be constrained by the metagame conditions instead of the cause of them.
Y'see, to take your example, of course it would be silly for a merchant to deny a sale because the customer already had enough armor. But I don't see it as silly at all for an adventurer to stop finding money because they already have enough money.
Like I said previously, wealth starvation isn't the only way to correct the metagame situation — but it is still a valid one. It can be annoying if it's done without a bit of grace, but so is everything else, right?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except that the statement is part of the rules model you are wanting to discuss. GM discretion is an inherent part of that model and must be taken into account. You cannot pick and choose to suit the needs of your arguement. If you want to discuss the model, you must address all aspects of it. To do otherwise is disingenuous.Before you complain about GMs not following the rules, perhaps you should use rules that don't start with:
The following guidelines are presented to help GMs determine what items are available in a given community. These guidelines assume a setting with an average level of magic. Some cities might deviate wildly from these baselines, subject to GM discretion.I haven't complained about GM's not following the rules. I don't know what any GM's are or are not doing. Nor do I care what any GM's are or not doing.
I'm just discussing the rules model. Obviously anyone is free to use it or not. Pointing that out isn't necessary and has no bearing on the discussion OF THE MODEL.
I can agree with this...and to do so essentially concedes the OP's point. The magic item creation system w/o XP restrictions requires GM interference (or acceptance of runaway, h/t to Evil Lincoln, which is a different flavor of the same concession of the OP).
Whether or not XP restrictions fix the problem is a different and valid question.
Except that the XP costs did nothing to any of the actual abuses of the magic item system, while scaring people who might have dabbled in it away from the path. Anyone who actually looked at the math of it realized how irrelevant it was to them, but people who were unwilling to do that never bothered. Thus, the XP cost was a detriment by being a false cost that only served to scare people who were less likely to abuse it away.
|
|
Except that the XP costs did nothing to any of the actual abuses of the magic item system, while scaring people who might have dabbled in it away from the path. Anyone who actually looked at the math of it realized how irrelevant it was to them, but people who were unwilling to do that never bothered. Thus, the XP cost was a detriment by being a false cost that only served to scare people who were less likely to abuse it away.Except that the statement is part of the rules model you are wanting to discuss. GM discretion is an inherent part of that model and must be taken into account. You cannot pick and choose to suit the needs of your arguement. If you want to discuss the model, you must address all aspects of it. To do otherwise is disingenuous.Before you complain about GMs not following the rules, perhaps you should use rules that don't start with:
The following guidelines are presented to help GMs determine what items are available in a given community. These guidelines assume a setting with an average level of magic. Some cities might deviate wildly from these baselines, subject to GM discretion.I haven't complained about GM's not following the rules. I don't know what any GM's are or are not doing. Nor do I care what any GM's are or not doing.
I'm just discussing the rules model. Obviously anyone is free to use it or not. Pointing that out isn't necessary and has no bearing on the discussion OF THE MODEL.
I can agree with this...and to do so essentially concedes the OP's point. The magic item creation system w/o XP restrictions requires GM interference (or acceptance of runaway, h/t to Evil Lincoln, which is a different flavor of the same concession of the OP).
Whether or not XP restrictions fix the problem is a different and valid question.
Then raise it from 1/25th to something higher. The notion will work if the math is done right. Actually the XP expenditure could increase as the person increases in level.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So who's forcing you to click on this thread and read it?Just lock it down JB. Shallowsoul is just going to come in here insulting you for not doing things his way.
Makes me rethink some of my own interactions with Paizo devs...
Morbid fascination.
|
Hey, here's a spiffy notion: let's those of us who are happy without XP costs stop posting on this thread.
And, yeah, I DO like getting the last word...
But, rilly, all we're doing here is feeding some ego, and of somebody we disagree with, to boot. Let's let the thread die.
It won't die, but I agree those of us who have presented our arguments should step out, as our piece has been said and anything further will be trying to change a mind, which is akin to stopping the tides.
How do you sell at a profit without the GM's permission?
|
|
How do you sell at a profit without the GM's permission?Hedge Magician.
That's the feat I was trying to remember.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How do you sell at a profit without the GM's permission?Hedge Magician.
To sell anything you need the GM's permission. Hedge Magician only allows you to decrease your costs to produce things. It doesn't create avenues to sell things.
And if a GM can't control his game with his players making 5% profit on the production of magic items, he has much bigger issues.
|
|
Shallow, did you see my suggestion to "spend" lifespan instead of XP?
No I didn't see that.
I always saw XP as lifespan, kind of like how Enervation drains lifeforce which means it drains levels which in turn has to do with XP.
Next time anyone talks about XP being dumb to simulate lifeforce, always refer them to level drain and effects like Enervation that say it drains lifeforce.
Then raise it from 1/25th to something higher. The...Except that the XP costs did nothing to any of the actual abuses of the magic item system, while scaring people who might have dabbled in it away from the path. Anyone who actually looked at the math of it realized how irrelevant it was to them, but people who were unwilling to do that never bothered. Thus, the XP cost was a detriment by being a false cost that only served to scare people who were less likely to abuse it away.Except that the statement is part of the rules model you are wanting to discuss. GM discretion is an inherent part of that model and must be taken into account. You cannot pick and choose to suit the needs of your arguement. If you want to discuss the model, you must address all aspects of it. To do otherwise is disingenuous.Before you complain about GMs not following the rules, perhaps you should use rules that don't start with:
The following guidelines are presented to help GMs determine what items are available in a given community. These guidelines assume a setting with an average level of magic. Some cities might deviate wildly from these baselines, subject to GM discretion.I haven't complained about GM's not following the rules. I don't know what any GM's are or are not doing. Nor do I care what any GM's are or not doing.
I'm just discussing the rules model. Obviously anyone is free to use it or not. Pointing that out isn't necessary and has no bearing on the discussion OF THE MODEL.
I can agree with this...and to do so essentially concedes the OP's point. The magic item creation system w/o XP restrictions requires GM interference (or acceptance of runaway, h/t to Evil Lincoln, which is a different flavor of the same concession of the OP).
Whether or not XP restrictions fix the problem is a different and valid question.
You're in the minority, so just run YOUR game the way YOU want to run it. There's lots of rules I dislike, I change them for my games, I dislike that many classes have 2+int for skills, so I have a 4+Int minimum. That's what house rules are about. I see more people playing Pathfinder at game stores than I saw people playing 3.x, so they must be doing something right...
Publish your own PDF with your new item creation rules even!
|
|
However, in PF, there is no level drain and Enervation does not reduce XP.
Energy Drain
School necromancy; Level cleric 9, sorcerer/wizard 9Saving Throw Fortitude partial; see text for enervation
This spell functions like enervation, except that the creature
struck gains 2d4 temporary negative levels. Twenty-four hours
after gaining them, the subject must make a Fortitude saving throw
(DC = energy drain spell’s save DC) for each negative level. If the save
succeeds, that negative level is removed. If it fails, that negative level
becomes permanent.
An undead creature struck by the ray gains 2d4 × 5 temporary hit
points for 1 hour.
Enervation
School necromancy; Level sorcerer/wizard 4
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Effect ray of negative energy
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance yes
You point your finger and fire a black ray of negative energy that
suppresses the life force of any living creature it strikes. You
must make a ranged touch attack to hit. If you hit, the subject
gains 1d4 temporary negative levels (see Appendix 1). Negative
levels stack.
Assuming the subject survives, it regains lost levels after a
number of hours equal to your caster level (maximum 15 hours).
Usually, negative levels have a chance of becoming permanent, but
the negative levels from enervation don’t last long enough to do so.
An undead creature struck by the ray gains 1d4 × 5 temporary hit
points for 1 hour.
Might want to go and brush up on your rules knowledge. I never said Enervation drains XP, I said that levels, XP and Lifeforce all have a connection because some people thought it was absurd to make a connection. You level up through XP, lifeforce is drained which in game terms means you lose a level or levels. Lifeforce is associated with levels which is associated with XP.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Then raise it from 1/25th to something higher. The...Oberoni Falicy.
(Come on, who could resist this?)
I was talking about making it an official rule of the game.
Next time, please resist.
Yes, you were talking about modifying rules (rules that you were defending earlier) to raise the cost.
Thus you are using rule zero (modifying rules) to address what you feel a flaw in the game is. Congratulations. you've just performed the same thing you've (rudely) accused people of.
|
|
...Then raise it from 1/25th toExcept that the XP costs did nothing to any of the actual abuses of the magic item system, while scaring people who might have dabbled in it away from the path. Anyone who actually looked at the math of it realized how irrelevant it was to them, but people who were unwilling to do that never bothered. Thus, the XP cost was a detriment by being a false cost that only served to scare people who were less likely to abuse it away.Except that the statement is part of the rules model you are wanting to discuss. GM discretion is an inherent part of that model and must be taken into account. You cannot pick and choose to suit the needs of your arguement. If you want to discuss the model, you must address all aspects of it. To do otherwise is disingenuous.Before you complain about GMs not following the rules, perhaps you should use rules that don't start with:
The following guidelines are presented to help GMs determine what items are available in a given community. These guidelines assume a setting with an average level of magic. Some cities might deviate wildly from these baselines, subject to GM discretion.I haven't complained about GM's not following the rules. I don't know what any GM's are or are not doing. Nor do I care what any GM's are or not doing.
I'm just discussing the rules model. Obviously anyone is free to use it or not. Pointing that out isn't necessary and has no bearing on the discussion OF THE MODEL.
I can agree with this...and to do so essentially concedes the OP's point. The magic item creation system w/o XP restrictions requires GM interference (or acceptance of runaway, h/t to Evil Lincoln, which is a different flavor of the same concession of the OP).
Whether or not XP restrictions fix the problem is a different and valid question.
I just love it when someone assumes these boards represent the majority of players out there *sarcastic*.
Maybe minority on these boards but not necessarily the gaming community as a whole.
I was talking about making it an official rule of the game.
Shallowsoul, you are definitely wasting your effort here. It ain't gonna happen. You missed the open playtest by a few years.
"Fallacies" have no bearing on this discussion either. Using these poorly-understood boilerplate logic-nuggets as some kind of win button in argument is really ineffective, IMO, and weakens any legitimate case.
It comes down to this: Shallowsoul would like an old rule to be reinstated so that all players have to abide by it. To which I declare: poppycock.
|
|
Then raise it from 1/25th to something higher. The...Oberoni Falicy.
(Come on, who could resist this?)
I was talking about making it an official rule of the game.
Next time, please resist.
Yes, you were talking about modifying rules (rules that you were defending earlier) to raise the cost.
Thus you are using rule zero (modifying rules) to address what you feel a flaw in the game is. Congratulations. you've just performed the same thing you've (rudely) accused people of.
Congratulations, went so far over your head that it leaves you staring!
How about take off the blinders for a moment and actually listen. I was talking about the designers making it part of item creation rules, I'm not talking about adding in anything extra. If SKR comes in and says "okay, we are going redo the rules for item creation and bring back the XP costs but there will be some differences", is not rule 0. If I did this in a homebrew then that is invoking the Fallacy. Please go and study the Fallacy before you try and use it in an argument.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
[How about take off the blinders for a moment and actually listen.
Irony on aisle five!
Original post
Just what the title says. Why was XP cost eliminated from certain spells and magic item creation. I always thought it was a great way to keep things in check but now the DM really has to watch how much gold he gives out and keep an eye on the players if they try and find ways to exploit getting massive amounts of gold. I think they should bring back this rule.
Now that you've gotten the answer you want, from the designers you've proceeded to insult, you're arguing it's still a flaw and, again, despite being told by several people, are arguing to change the rules for everyone.
So trust me child, you've already lost your arguement, had your questions answered and, like a child you're now flailing.
Fortunately others can humor you. Me not much.
Edit: Let me rephrase. You've gotten the correct answer. You're child like insulting and throwing cereal is because it's not the answer you want.