|
Monte, Jonathan, Skip, Jason, and I disagree. (Stephen may disagree, too, but I haven't asked him about it.) Do what you want for your home game.I'm more interested in the why. Can you, please, explain why you think it is not a good thing?
Because it means that a +1 item is a +1 bonus for some players but not for others.
It isn't that complicated.
Believe it or not, having loopholes in the game isn't the goal of the Devs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm more interested in the why. Can you, please, explain why you think it is not a good thing?
If Paizo puts out a book that has an item in it that gives a +2 [any ability score] bonus to characters whose name starts with a letter from A-M, do you think that is good design theory? Only half the people benefit from the item, it takes up page space, and frankly, it makes little to no sense.
It's not really that much different - half the people to wear an odd numbered bonus item receive no benefit. By mandating the even number, you maintain the situation in which every item that has an ability score boosting effect has the SAME effect for EVERYONE - which is the very intent of the item in the first place: to grant X effect.
I'm more interested in the why. Can you, please, explain why you think it is not a good thing?
If Paizo puts out a book that has an item in it that gives a +2 [any ability score] bonus to characters whose name starts with a letter from A-M, do you think that is good design theory? Only half the people benefit from the item, it takes up page space, and frankly, it makes little to no sense.
It's not really that much different - half the people to wear an odd numbered bonus item receive no benefit. By mandating the even number, you maintain the situation in which every item that has an ability score boosting effect has the SAME effect for EVERYONE - which is the very intent of the item in the first place: to grant X effect.
Nope. But when half of those people spent an extra 1, 2, or 3 ability points out of their 15 points, then yes, I would not only see it as not bad game design, but good game design. Odd ability scores are more costly than even scores. There should be a benefit. Otherwise, scores should be purchased in +2s as well.
EDIT: As an example, you begin at 10. If you spend 1 point, you're still at +0. Spend another point and you get +1. If you're at 12 and spend another point, you still only have a +1. Spending another point gets you to 14 and a +2 (your buying the +2). From 14 to 15 costs 2 more points. From 16 to 17 costs 3 extra points.
A character that has 13, 13, 13, 13, 13, 10 (15 PB) is supposed to be worth more than 12, 12, 12, 12, 12, 12 (12 PB). This is true if you realize that +1 items are cheaper than +2 items, which means that the guy with the 13s and one 10 is going to reach 14 in those stats sooner and more cheaply (in GP not AP) than the guy with the 12s across the board and 3 more points to spends. The first guy gets to 14 for 1,000 gp, and the 2nd guy gets to 13 for 1,000 gp. The first guy gets to 15 with 4,000 gp, and the 2nd guy gets to 14 for 4,000 gp. So guy #1 is gratified for his investment of 5 points that had no immediate benefit.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
{Odd ability scores are more costly than even scores.}
Because odd scores are used as feat prerequisites.
Because odd scores are one 4th-level bump away from being even scores.
Basically, because (1) the core ability score mechanic in the game recognizes that you only get bonuses at even numbers, and (2) you're using a die-rolling or point-buy mechanic for ability scores that give you both odd and even numbers. So the system has most of the benefits on the even numbers, and accepts that you're going to have some odd numbers, and by forcing you to accept those odd numbers, it makes you plan your character for about more than just the here and now, but for the character's future.
Odd number N is much better than even number N-1 and not good as even number N+1. When you introduce a magic item that turns N into N+1, it's giving you N+1 for the price of N, which is a bad thing.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A character that has 13, 13, 13, 13, 13, 10 (15 PB) is supposed to be worth more than 12, 12, 12, 12, 12, 12 (12 PB).
They are. At 4th, 8th, 12th, 16, and 20th level if your character puts a point in each they will be 14, 14, 14, 14, 14, 10.
The other guy will be...
A character that has 13, 13, 13, 13, 13, 10 (15 PB) is supposed to be worth more than 12, 12, 12, 12, 12, 12 (12 PB).
They are. At 4th, 8th, 12th, 16, and 20th level if your character puts a point in each they will be 14, 14, 14, 14, 14, 10.
The other guy will be...
Sporting 24, 24, 24, 24, 24, 23, instead of 25, 25, 25, 25, 25, 21.
Ashiel, your 15 PB character has just opened up countless feats for himself.
Combat Expertise, Deadly Aim, Deflect Arrows, Improved Grapple, Natural Spell, Nimble Moves... I am not going to go through them all, but that's just half a page from the CRB.
15 PB character has access (ignoring other requirements) at level 1. The 12 PB must wait until 5th level - 4th level ability point, followed by 5th level feat. In addition, at 4th level, your 15 PB character receives a +1 to the modifier of any of the 5 out of 6 he chooses. Meanwhile, at 4th level, the 12 PB character does not.
EDIT: And that's before you consider any of them being spellcasters, being restricted to 10 + spell level minimum casting stat per level of spell.
|
|
Sporting 24, 24, 24, 24, 24, 23, instead of 25, 25, 25, 25, 25, 21.
A character that has 13, 13, 13, 13, 13, 10 (15 PB) is supposed to be worth more than 12, 12, 12, 12, 12, 12 (12 PB).
They are. At 4th, 8th, 12th, 16, and 20th level if your character puts a point in each they will be 14, 14, 14, 14, 14, 10.
The other guy will be...
Because they have all max enhancements and all tomes for all levels...right...
Let's follow your Mr. 13 through his adventuring life.
While Mr. 12 is saving for his 1 +2 item, Mr. 13 has two +1 items giving him bonuses to two things, rather than one.
This remains true throughout his adventuring career, throughout the game.
At level 20 you have 880,000 k wbl
Your belt and headband are 144,000 k each, so 288,000.
Tomes are 137,500. You need 6.
You've now spent 1,113,000, making you 233,000 over WBL wearing no armor, have no weapons, no material components, rods, wands, magic items....
The game is about choices. I know you sometimes think that is cruel, but without choices there is no game.
Because they have all max enhancements and all tomes for all levels...right...
A +6 item is only 36,000 gp. The only reason to bundle them all together is if you're just trying to save body slots. There's enough body slots that you can get six +6 items if you want to. As for tomes, I'm not going down that route again right now. Suffice to say that if you want to stick to the rules that the designers have given us, there are other methods of getting your +5 inherent modifiers.
The game is about choices. I know you sometimes think that is cruel, but without choices there is no game.
You know nothing of what I think.
|
|
Because they have all max enhancements and all tomes for all levels...right...A +6 item is only 36,000 gp. The only reason to bundle them all together is if you're just trying to save body slots. There's enough body slots that you can get six +6 items if you want to. As for tomes, I'm not going down that route again right now. Suffice to say that if you want to stick to the rules that the designers have given us, there are other methods of getting your +5 inherent modifiers.
Your mean that Genie simulacrum that grants wishes you don't want to bring up since Sean is reading this thread and would put the kibosh on that loophole exploit as well?
I may know "nothing of what you think" but you do have a 4000 post history of what you've said. I don't believe you've ever taken a position of "That is overpowered, we need to fix it"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because they have all max enhancements and all tomes for all levels...right...A +6 item is only 36,000 gp. The only reason to bundle them all together is if you're just trying to save body slots. There's enough body slots that you can get six +6 items if you want to. As for tomes, I'm not going down that route again right now. Suffice to say that if you want to stick to the rules that the designers have given us, there are other methods of getting your +5 inherent modifiers.
Your mean that Genie simulacrum that grants wishes you don't want to bring up since Sean is reading this thread and would put the kibosh on that loophole exploit as well?
I may know "nothing of what you think" but you do have a 4000 post history of what you've said. I don't believe you've ever taken a position of "That is overpowered, we need to fix it"
I'm sure Sean knows. If he's half the D&D geek most of us are, he's probably heard about twenty or thirty more. People pointed out these things during the playtest, and talked to the devs about it (there was commentary about how you can make genies give you wishes during the playtest, and the staff discussed it). Final product rolled around, and everything is still do-able. I would be surprised if folks at the Paizo office don't talk about some of the crazy stuff you can legally do in the rules; because anyone who loves the game will have that kind of interest in it.
The biggest reason I haven't taken a position of "that is overpowered, we need to fix it" is because I cut my teeth on 3.0, then later 3.5, and now Pathfinder. Most of this stuff is mild or old news. Seriously, half the junk I've mentioned has been do-able since 3E came out. It is most definitely nothing new. It's been on countless forums. It doesn't bother me anymore. I've had to nerf things during my campaigns before. Nerfing is generally a last resort. If something is creating a problem, I generally attempt to fix it in the least invasive way possible. Looking back on my posting history, you'll notice that while I did point out that it's 100% legal to poop Solars; I also posted - as a gift to Wraithstrike - a fix for Simulacrum that makes it a heck of a lot less abuseable and better defined, while also keeping the spirit and awesomeness of the spell more or less intact. The fix I submitted was most assuredly a "nerf" but it was written to be cleaner and work better. Link to Ashiel's Simulacrum Mods.
The biggest reason that I don't jump up and down and call for nerfs constantly is because none of this stuff is ruining my games. Wish usually wasn't ruining my games in 3.x, and the PF version (which is incredibly nerfed) definitely won't be. I did, in one 3.5 campaign, have to nerf wish because it could be used to essentially get a Pun-Pun suit without going outside of core (essentially you could legally wish for a magic item that did everything with as high a caster level as you wanted, so you could have a caster level 100 magic item that cast all spells quickened, granted more or less any number to your ability scores, granted any number to your saving throws, and gave you every positive effect that any magic item gives you, including being your more or less indestructible sentient phylactery that served your every whim). I ended up removing the ability to produce magic items because it was easily abused to gain magic items of infinite value.
I look at a lot of stuff out here and shake my head. I look at people crying because alchemists are burning down their world. Gunslingers are ruining their encounters. Fireball is overpowered! Yes, I shake my head. I've been past that point for a long, long time. I appreciate a clean system, and I appreciate players and GMs that are honest. I'll happily admit Simulacrum is probably the most broken spell in the entire game. Topped only by chain-gating (which is broke as hell, and I'm glad they fixed it in Pathfinder so I didn't have to); but since it is there, then it's "legal".
Being a jerk to people because they don't condemn it instantaneously, or because they don't have a problem with people using it for certain things that don't break their games, isn't really cool. Neither is your harassment and passive-aggressive baiting cool.
If I was writing Simulacrum for a system for somebody else, I wouldn't use the current PF simulacrum. I'd use a revised version (like the one I posted here). However, in the actual game as printed, getting enough wishes together to get your stats up around 13th level is not difficult. It doesn't throw a monkey wrench into my games (and shouldn't in other games if the encounters and such are designed semi-decently) so I could care less. I care more about the disparity between the core classes throughout the more common game elements and working on that.
EDIT: Speaking of not posting things because of fear of devs nerfing it in errata; you must not have seen my blaster druid guide. It's pretty terrifying. Currently, you can make a very heinous druid in PF using Dazing Spell. I actually said that might guide might lead to a nerf. One of my players is using Dazing Spell currently, and requested that since it wasn't ruining our games, for me to please not adhere to any nerfs my guide may bring about in the actual system. I promised I wouldn't, since I have no need to...yet. :3
These things are broken in your game because you encourage the game to be broken in your game.
And if that works for you, great.
But stop telling the Devs you know better than them when you regularly demonstrate pride in trying to game the system.
I just spent a whole post saying these things aren't broken in my game. Does thou lack reading comprehension?
Also, if anyone could stop telling someone something, we could start by stopping the bossy attitude. I didn't TELL Sean what to do. I commented on the game, cautioned against blanket statements (I think the +1 item might be in my 3E basic set, but I need to dig it out and look), and asked him to explain stuff. Seriously, I don't think Sean is so thin skinned as you treat him. Sean and I have discussed mechanics far harder in the past (there was a colorful bit of banter concerning the fact Ultimate Combat might as well have been called Ultimate Mages R Better than U", back during the playtest :P). I think he's a good sport about it, and I respect that (Psst: your blog is pretty cool too, Sean).
I actually like the fact that he's willing to come along and toss in a few rounds on the issues of mechanical crunch. A few more rounds like this on a few other subjects, and I might be able to let him live down that silliness about Vow of Poverty. :3
*wink at Sean* ;)
I would seriously reconsider any spell that gives you greater than normal wealth by level, but if everyone in the game uses it then honestly its no different than your GM handing you the extra gold and as such its not unbalancing because the NPCs will be built with that in mind (more consumables to buff themselves, better tactics, gear designed to counter the expected higher AC's, to hit rolls and skill checks).
Basically you just move the playing field up a few notches for both players and NPCs and the difference is unnoticable.
It's true. Very true. If adding +2.5 to your stat modifiers suddenly breaks your game, then it was teetering on the edge anyway (in regards to +5 inherent modifiers). It's less powerful than the Advanced simple template, and shouldn't even require you to up the CR of enemies really (around the point you get it, it is roughly equivalent to having a long duration version of the 2nd level stat buffs or something cast, which has by this point become all but obsolete).
Every word in a hardcover rulebook in the PFRPG line is read by me, Stephen, and Jason for rules issues.
I find it hard to believe any of you three read the Antagonize feat prior to publication. ;)
But you guys do an outstanding job. Paizo puts out so many products, the batting average is crazy good!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would seriously reconsider any spell that gives you greater than normal wealth by level, but if everyone in the game uses it then honestly its no different than your GM handing you the extra gold and as such its not unbalancing because the NPCs will be built with that in mind (more consumables to buff themselves, better tactics, gear designed to counter the expected higher AC's, to hit rolls and skill checks).
Basically you just move the playing field up a few notches for both players and NPCs and the difference is unnoticable.
If everyone is playing a broken game, it works fine.
But when you come to the messageboard complaining about how broken the game it when you broke it it's like going to the dealership and asking while your car doesn't run when you put diesel in the tank.
Which is what happens. Frequently.
The Dev came in and answered a question. Kudos to the Dev.
Because odd scores are used as feat prerequisites.
Because odd scores are one 4th-level bump away from being even scores.
Basically, because (1) the core ability score mechanic in the game recognizes that you only get bonuses at even numbers, and (2) you're using a die-rolling or point-buy mechanic for ability scores that give you both odd and even numbers. So the system has most of the benefits on the even numbers, and accepts that you're going to have some odd numbers, and by forcing you to accept those odd numbers, it makes you plan your character for about more than just the here and now, but for the character's future.
Odd number N is much better than even number N-1 and not good as even number N+1. When you introduce a magic item that turns N into N+1, it's giving you N+1 for the price of N, which is a bad thing.
Thank you for this clear explanation. This is all I needed. It is a much better explanation than "it's always been this way so there is PROBABLY a reason for it".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So at this point, even the obscure pull out of am unpublished free adventure doesn't meet the criteria.
Bahahaha! Oh man, I should have actually read the adventure rather than just trusting that what Ashiel was saying was factual.
What is not up for discussion is the existence/non-existence of one such item in an official WotC product.
...how...how did he miss what ciretose just posted?
Being a jerk to people because they don't condemn it instantaneously, or because they don't have a problem with people using it for certain things that don't break their games, isn't really cool. Neither is your harassment and passive-aggressive baiting cool.
Its being a jerk? Really? To disallow something that is game breaking? And whether you think it is game breaking or not, the Devs all disagree. Personally, I hate people being passive aggressive as well. It really grates on my nerves. But, do you know what I hate more? People who act like know-it-alls (and in fact come right out and brag about their in-depth obsessive knowledge of the game) yet post a flat out lie and then continue to base their arguement on that lie.
Ashiel, if you knew so dang much about the rules then you knew you were lieing when you posted that a +1 stat boost item exists. You know, prior to this thread I had a lot of respect for you. I thought your knowledge of the rules was sound and you had a lot of respect for game balance and the reasoning behind why the devs made the game the way they did. But after this thread... I have lost a lot of respect for you. Not just because you have shown a lot of disrespect to the developers when they answered the question repeatedly but also because you only argued your point based on a lie.
A bit of that respect would be re-earned if you simply owned up to what you did. Either if you own up that it was a flat out lie and you were basing your arguement for a rule's current existance on that lie, or that not only did you not know the rules as well as you said you did but that Sean was correct in his original statement. Because you know... there isn't a lot of wiggle room here. One or the other is true. I would like to believe it was an honest mistake but at this point I'm not certain you have it in you to admit even that.
Honestly, it is a bit more than that though. Any self-proclaimed Pathfinder rules guru that doesn't understand a concept as simple as cirtose put it, "Because it means that a +1 item is a +1 bonus for some players but not for others." isn't as much of a rules guru as I had thought. This is really the simplest mechanics reason that exists as to why odd numbered bonus items don't exist. That and as Adamantine Dragon pointed out, the formula is done with a square of their bonus which really upsets the curve especially for the +1 item.
At this point I think the entire thing boils down to this:
There are things in the game that while not expressly forbidden are implicitly forbidden. This is one of them.
Some people disagree with that, but those who do are in direct disagreement with the developers of the game. The reasoning has been given by both a developer and by other posters. This apparently is not good enough for some people which begs the question... what would be?
Lune, you are oversimplifying matters. It isn't that obvious. Berating the people who wanted a clear explanation is juvenile bandwagoning.
There are many items that benefit different characters differently. A paladin gets a different benefit from a Headband of Charisma than a sorcerer. If Gauntlets +1 don't help your character, sell them or give them to a party member that does benefit from them like you do with every piece of loot you've ever acquired in your adventuring career(s). That argument is not convincing.
Saying that the signifigant gap in the price of items that effectively grant the same benefit changes the dynamic of the game is more convincing.
Also, you have an overinflated sense of how fragile the Pathfinder game is.
It is robust.
It can handle odd numbered enhancement bonuses without "breaking".
I know this because it can handle characters with all 16s, 17s and 18s for stats and max hit points. It can handle min-maxers and role-purists. It can handle parties of 8. I've experienced these firsthand as both a player and as a DM.
Ashiel makes several good arguments for why odd numbered enhancement bonuses would be a good idea. Many others (SKR included) provided great reasons why they aren't a good idea especially in the context of large scale play.
People don't get to be "rules gurus" without rigorously questioning the rules. So don't berate people for their close examination of the rules. The only tabletop RPG I play is Pathfinder. I don't need to be berated for wanting to understand how it was made.
I am not over simplying anything. It really is simple.
Not all groups or everyone in a group uses the hand-me-down method you describe and that has no bearing on the rules of the game either way.
I do not have an overinflated sense of anything much less how fragile Pathfinder is and you wouldn't know my mind on such issues other than what I have said in this thread. So I'm not sure where you are getting your opinion from. Nonetheless, when I said it "breaks" the system I do not mean that it makes the game unplayable. I mean that it breaks the mechanics that the system is based off. It would be like the common mistake of using the Pathfinder skills mechanics with the 3.x skill caps and requirements for PrCs, feats, etc. The game is still playable, but it is not playable as intended as you have broken the mechanics by making that change.
Ashiel is entitled to his own opinion. But much of his opinions were predicated on the idea that these are reasons that it is RAW and intended to be RAW. This is simply not true and it was pointed out by a developer before he even said it. Read what he wrote. He said, "The game was built with the assumption that you can indeed have odd ability score items." That is claiming intent. Further he even went to backup his claim by posting something else that wasn't true at all; that an adventure on WotC's site has a +1 Str item. He even goes on in the very same post to call other's arguements "stupid" by saying, "The argument that it's a magic item that one character gets more out of than another is stupid."
And in his next post he tells a developer that he is wrong. He clearly was not wroing in the factual things that he said but Ashiel was not only saying he was wrong in the facts. He quoted Sean speaking on intent when he said Sean was wrong thus arguing against designer intent.
I have not berated Ashiel for his close examination of the rules and I would no longer refering to him as a "rules guru". I do call into question his motives for telling a developer that they are wrong, basing said arguement on something that is not true and then not accepting the reasoning behind designer intent when it was clearly stated why those rules were purposefully discluded. It is bad form at least and ...well, I don't want to offend so will just say that it could be taken as much worse than bad form.
Furthermore I have to say that I don't blame the devs for not posting in this kind of thread. They are asked for input about designer intent and have their opinions called "stupid". I myself was told I was being silly for saying that WotC never produced anything that had an odd numbered ability item in it. These aren't even topics that can be argued as the first is asking for designer intent which only a designer would know and the second is something that can be definitively proven. But that STILL doesn't stop people from the personal attacks.
I'm not trying to stifle curiosity. But have some candor, people. There is no need to attack a dev when he is being helpful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ashiel, if you knew so dang much about the rules then you knew you were lieing when you posted that a +1 stat boost item exists. You know, prior to this thread I had a lot of respect for you. I thought your knowledge of the rules was sound and you had a lot of respect for game balance and the reasoning behind why the devs made the game the way they did. But after this thread... I have lost a lot of respect for you. Not just because you have shown a lot of disrespect to the developers when they answered the question repeatedly but also because you only argued your point based on a lie.
A bit of that respect would be re-earned if you simply owned up to what you did. Either if you own up that it was a flat out lie and you were basing your arguement for a rule's current existance on that lie, or that not only did you not know the rules as well as you said you did but that Sean was correct in his original statement. Because you know... there isn't a lot of wiggle room here. One or the other is true. I would like to believe it was an honest mistake but at this point I'm not certain you have it in you to admit even that.
Wait a minute, she didn't intentionally lie. She misremembered something. She posted the link to the adventure. Anyone could have looked at it at any time but they also assumed it was fact. It wasn't until I looked at it that we discovered that she was mistaken. If she had intended on lying, she would not have posted the link that would so easily prove her wrong. Ashiel isn't stupid and she isn't a liar. She made a mistake and that's all it was.
She also did own up to it. She said that she does remember there being such and item and she is going to search other adventures to find the elusive item. She doesn't need to write a long formal apology. It was an honest mistake on her part and she admitted that she was wrong about the item. Her position on whether or not such items should exist has not changed.
So at this point, even the obscure pull out of am unpublished free adventure doesn't meet the criteria.Bahahaha! Oh man, I should have actually read the adventure rather than just trusting that what Ashiel was saying was factual.
Well that was why I included the link to the adventure. I was going from memory and was pretty sure it was in that and didn't double check my references. But I still included the reference so people could, y'know, reference it. I wouldn't try to hide away the books at my table from my players for fear of being wrong, and I wouldn't do it here either.
Being a jerk to people because they don't condemn it instantaneously, or because they don't have a problem with people using it for certain things that don't break their games, isn't really cool. Neither is your harassment and passive-aggressive baiting cool.Its being a jerk? Really? To disallow something that is game breaking?
No, I was referring to Ciretose specifically. Ciretose is very quick to talk hatefully to people, and has been known to actually follow people around harassing them, and commonly tells people that they are ruining the game when they test the limits. In his mind, the fact that I don't freak out because you can get wish spells easily during your downtime from 13th+ level by the rules is the reason "we can't have nice things"; and he tries to be as obstinate and disparaging as possible when his ideal is threatened.
For example, I don't make a habit of calling people names or insinuating they are a cancer on all that is the game. I've seen other posters on the boards who do basically that. I do admit to satirically mimicing these sorts of actions in a notedly tongue-in-cheek fashion as a form of parody to such behavior (and I let people know I'm not serious).
And whether you think it is game breaking or not, the Devs all disagree. Personally, I hate people being passive aggressive as well. It really grates on my nerves. But, do you know what I hate more? People who act like know-it-alls (and in fact come right out and brag about their in-depth obsessive knowledge of the game) yet post a flat out lie and then continue to base their arguement on that lie.
It's true. I accidentally lied. It wasn't an intentional lie (there was no attempt at deception), but I apologize for the confusion none the less. As for being a know it all, I can only say - if you say so. I've never claimed to know it all. The most I've ever claimed is having a working knowledge of the system derived from entirely too much experience. I myself caution others to remember that everyone (including ourselves) can be wrong from time to time. That's why I urge new GMs to never fall for the trap of "the GM is always right" because they learn much faster if they are willing to admit when they are wrong and learn from others too. In doing so, they can become better GMs faster.
Ashiel, if you knew so dang much about the rules then you knew you were lieing when you posted that a +1 stat boost item exists.
It was an unintended lie, because I really did believe that the item existed in that specific adventure (the perils of going from memory which can be nebulous at times). Again, my apologies for the confusion. I don't think anyone likes making mistakes (I try to learn from them, but I don't specifically like them) but I've never claimed to know everything.
You know, prior to this thread I had a lot of respect for you. I thought your knowledge of the rules was sound and you had a lot of respect for game balance and the reasoning behind why the devs made the game the way they did.
I cannot directly control what you think, so it will suffice to say that we have shared similar thoughts. I believe I do have a lot of respect for game balance, and I don't believe my knowledge of the rules is particularly shabby.
But after this thread... I have lost a lot of respect for you.
Not just because you have shown a lot of disrespect to the developers when they answered the question repeatedly but also because you only argued your point based on a lie.
I apologize for upsetting you so. Such was not my intent. You are free to think as you do, and we shall see where things take us from there. I admit to being wrong concerning the adventure. Rummaging through my 3.0 material looking for the reference, I realized I may have been thinking of the items in NWN-1; which was entirely my own mistake (and I acknowledged my mistake of citing the wrong source some posts back).
Now that that is being said, I am going to say something in my literal defense. I have no disrespected the developers or anyone else in this thread. I will admit to what I have done, but not to things I haven't. The worst that I have said was that someone was wrong, and yet as it was I was the one who was wrong for trusting merely in memory and jumping the gun. But that is no the same as disrespect - at least where I am from. Like I said, I don't think Sean is as thin skinned as you folks make him out to be. I don't think he's going to run and cry under his bed because someone believed him wrong (though he probably smirked when that belief was dispelled). Sean and I have discussed rules before on these boards (and the fellow has a good mix of humor and sarcasm which has kept such banters from being boringly dry).
Unless you are referring to this comment, where I specifically said I had no commentary on what was or was not designer intent, versus what was an was not RAW.
As for designer intention, I don't really have a dog in that fight. I've lost most of my faith in "designer intention". What works and what doesn't, by RAW, is all that matters to me until house rules are concerned. I might have more faith if it wasn't for the designers demonstrating to us design problems (Antagonize, Vow of Suck, Monks, some FAQ entries that directly contradict the actual rules, etc).
Perhaps it was my use of terminology. Where I am from, "don't have a dog in that fight" means that it is none of my business, it is not my concern, I'm not involved in that. Which is true. I really don't care so much about what the designers intended as much as I do concerning whether the game plays well or not (I doubt there will be a time where I will have a designer on hand at the table with my group to source constantly as to whether or not a rule was meant to do what it says it does).
If instead you mean the fact I said I have lost a lot of faith in designer intent...well I make no apologies for that. It's as true as your loss of faith in me. As I said, I don't care much about what the intent was, so long as the game runs well. The things I called out are examples of things that give me the impression that they don't care about it running well, so much as looking pretty (and on the subject, the vagueness of many of the rules - that have sometimes been described as intentionally vague - is another thing that causes me to lose confidence). However, that's not disrespect either. It's fair criticism in the form of an explanation as to why I was specifically not getting into RAW vs RAI.
Honestly, it is a bit more than that though. Any self-proclaimed Pathfinder rules guru that doesn't understand a concept as simple as cirtose put it, "Because it means that a +1 item is a +1 bonus for some players but not for others." isn't as much of a rules guru as I had thought. This is really the simplest mechanics reason that exists as to why odd numbered bonus items don't exist. That and as Adamantine Dragon pointed out, the formula is done with a square of their bonus which really upsets the curve especially for the +1 item.
I never self-proclaimed anything. Nor have I ever said I was a rules guru. Let's get that out of the way right now. That being said, I do believe that the design decision is questionable (I will not go into the deeper reasons at the moment, this post is long enouh) but I didn't ask him to convince me. I merely asked Sean to explain it, which he did quite reasonably; which was all I asked for since I wasn't interested in anything except the mechanical stance behind it.
I am personally fine with how this thread has turned out. We have determined that odd ability bonuses are RAW but not necessarily intended, but have seen positions for the good and ill of either option, and now people can compare or try both methods and see where they stand on the matter. I have nothing else to ask of the thread. I do still caution about blanket statements though.
Ashiel, if you knew so dang much about the rules then you knew you were lieing when you posted that a +1 stat boost item exists. You know, prior to this thread I had a lot of respect for you. I thought your knowledge of the rules was sound and you had a lot of respect for game balance and the reasoning behind why the devs made the game the way they did. But after this thread... I have lost a lot of respect for you. Not just because you have shown a lot of disrespect to the developers when they answered the question repeatedly but also because you only argued your point based on a lie.
A bit of that respect would be re-earned if you simply owned up to what you did. Either if you own up that it was a flat out lie and you were basing your arguement for a rule's current existance on that lie, or that not only did you not know the rules as well as you said you did but that Sean was correct in his original statement. Because you know... there isn't a lot of wiggle room here. One or the other is true. I would like to believe it was an honest mistake but at this point I'm not certain you have it in you to admit even that.
Wait a minute, she didn't intentionally lie. She misremembered something. She posted the link to the adventure. Anyone could have looked at it at any time but they also assumed it was fact. It wasn't until I looked at it that we discovered that she was mistaken. If she had intended on lying, she would not have posted the link that would so easily prove her wrong. Ashiel isn't stupid and she isn't a liar. She made a mistake and that's all it was.
She also did own up to it. She said that she does remember there being such and item and she is going to search other adventures to find the elusive item. She doesn't need to write a long formal apology. It was an honest mistake on her part and she admitted that she was wrong about the item. Her position on whether or not such items should exist has not changed.
Thank you Bob. I appreciate that. :)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am personally fine with how this thread has turned out. We have determined that odd ability bonuses are RAW but not necessarily intended, but have seen positions for the good and ill of either option, and now people can compare or try both methods and see where they stand on the matter. I have nothing else to ask of the thread. I do still caution about blanket statements though.
Did we read the same thread? Because the one I read had a Dev come in and put the kibosh on odd numbered ability modifiers.
It also included you referencing an example that didn't exist to refute the Dev, then you taking a number of shots at the Dev, then the Dev explaining why the rule was the rule.
House rule it to your hearts content, and have a lovely day.
I like how you say you don't make a habit of being disparaging right after you spend a paragraph insulting me.
I'd flag it, but I think it illustrates your flexible reasoning very well, so I hope the mods leave it.
Insulting you? No. I think not. I was explaining the things that you do that I was referring to as "being a jerk". Lune apparently thought I was referencing something else. Considering even other posters have called you out for your harassment of others, I don't think it should be insulting to you as I explain to Lune what I was talking about.
|
|
"Ciretose is very quick to talk hatefully to people" isn't insulting me?
Really?
Have you ever seen the show "Home Improvement"? Might be a bit before your time. Starred Tim Allen, and it was based on his stand up routine. His catch phrase was "More power!" which invariably led to him rigging some machine of some sort to make it more powerful, generally leading to it blowing up comically.
I was just thinking about that show for some reason...
For me it is pretty simple:
A +2 <ability type> enhancement bonus is really another way of saying a +1 <ability type> enhancement bonus to the ability modifer score.
+1 ability modifier should cost X amount. In this case for it is 4,000gp for the first +1, 16,000gp for the second +1 and 36,000gp for the third +1 (all of the same ability score).
To me, trying to get a +0.5 ability modifier is trying to game the system in order to get a +1 for less money.
I will not allow +1 ability score enhancement bonuses in my game.
- Gauss
P.S. I will admit odd numbers are mostly useless except as prerequisites.
Odd numbers are numbers you can make even every 4 levels.
P.S. I will admit odd numbers are mostly useless except as prerequisites.
And what do you do 4 levels after that?
Lets say, a Wizard.
Str 9
Dex 12
Con 14
Int 17
Wis 12
Cha 10
You put your level 4 bump in Intelligence. Where do you put your level 8 bump?
For me it is pretty simple:
A +2 <ability type> enhancement bonus is really another way of saying a +1 <ability type> enhancement bonus to the ability modifer score.
+1 ability modifier should cost X amount. In this case for it is 4,000gp for the first +1, 16,000gp for the second +1 and 36,000gp for the third +1 (all of the same ability score).
To me, trying to get a +0.5 ability modifier is trying to game the system in order to get a +1 for less money.
I will not allow +1 ability score enhancement bonuses in my game.
- Gauss
P.S. I will admit odd numbers are mostly useless except as prerequisites.
This is a pretty sound argument and I'm not opposed to it. I think it illustrates one reason why I think the original attribute numbers should become a thing of the past. You use them to generate your character, but after that the only thing kept is the bonus number. The attribute boost at levels 4, 8, 12, etc would alternate between a classes primary stat and their secondary stats. At 4th level, a Fighter could boost their Str/Dex/Con, then at 8th level they could increase Int/Wis/Cha. Alternating back and forth.
This is essentially what happens in the Dragon Age RPG (PnP version).
Odd numbers are numbers you can make even every 4 levels.
P.S. I will admit odd numbers are mostly useless except as prerequisites.
And what do you do 4 levels after that?
Lets say, a Wizard.
Str 9
Dex 12
Con 14
Int 17
Wis 12
Cha 10You put your level 4 bump in Intelligence. Where do you put your level 8 bump?
Same place a wizard with a 18 put his at 4 INT to get a odd bonus for the next time.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For me it is pretty simple:
A +2 <ability type> enhancement bonus is really another way of saying a +1 <ability type> enhancement bonus to the ability modifer score.
+1 ability modifier should cost X amount. In this case for it is 4,000gp for the first +1, 16,000gp for the second +1 and 36,000gp for the third +1 (all of the same ability score).
To me, trying to get a +0.5 ability modifier is trying to game the system in order to get a +1 for less money.
I will not allow +1 ability score enhancement bonuses in my game.
- Gauss
P.S. I will admit odd numbers are mostly useless except as prerequisites.
This is a pretty sound argument and I'm not opposed to it. I think it illustrates one reason why I think the original attribute numbers should become a thing of the past. You use them to generate your character, but after that the only thing kept is the
bonus number. The attribute boost at levels 4, 8, 12, etc would alternate between a classes primary stat and their secondary stats. At 4th level, a Fighter could boost their Str/Dex/Con, then at 8th level they could increase Int/Wis/Cha. Alternating back and forth.
This is essentially what happens in the Dragon Age RPG (PnP version).
That sounds awful.
That sounds awful.
What exactly sounds awful? Because the Fighter is getting the same exact bonus as he was before. Your bonus from Str goes from +4 to +5 at level 4. Then at level 12, it goes from +5 to +6. This is exactly what would have happened if you had put every increase into Str.
Same place a wizard with a 18 put his at 4 INT to get a odd bonus for the next time.Odd numbers are numbers you can make even every 4 levels.
P.S. I will admit odd numbers are mostly useless except as prerequisites.
And what do you do 4 levels after that?
Lets say, a Wizard.
Str 9
Dex 12
Con 14
Int 17
Wis 12
Cha 10You put your level 4 bump in Intelligence. Where do you put your level 8 bump?
And what is the advantage to doing that? That you have to wait 4 more levels to actually take advantage of it? You just waited 4 levels to get a "bonus" that doesn't actually do anything until you wait 4 more levels.
Strange how thats how the game works out isn't.
That sounds awful.What exactly sounds awful? Because the Fighter is getting the same exact bonus as he was before. Your bonus from Str goes from +4 to +5 at level 4. Then at level 12, it goes from +5 to +6. This is exactly what would have happened if you had put every increase into Str.
What if I multiclass? What if I play a concept that doesn't necessarily fit the archetype of the class? What if I simply want to boost one of my other stats, maybe for a feat or prestige class?
I really don't see a problem with odd numbered stat Items. It really only helps for a level or two anyway...People will add Level increases to Stats and will then have to spend gold to get it to an even stat anyway...It drains wealth from the PC's which is what all magic items are for.
One rule I'm kicking around though does involves the Intelligence Items...I think that the Skills should only be added to even numbered items so that +1 doesn't give you a skill and +3 only grants one, etc. This gets around a +1 Item granting a skill.
We're also thinking of making it like weapons and armor...+1 Enhancement per 3 levels so that casters can only make items divisible by three...so a 9th level caster can only make a +3 Stat bonus Item.
What if I multiclass? What if I play a concept that doesn't necessarily fit the archetype of the class? What if I simply want to boost one of my other stats, maybe for a feat or prestige class?That sounds awful.What exactly sounds awful? Because the Fighter is getting the same exact bonus as he was before. Your bonus from Str goes from +4 to +5 at level 4. Then at level 12, it goes from +5 to +6. This is exactly what would have happened if you had put every increase into Str.
Are you trying to suggest these are unsolvable and insurmountable problems? Because this was an off the cuff idea, so I'm sorry I don't have concrete answers to every possible scenario you can come up with. I haven't even tried using it in a game.
I think a whole +1, with some restrictions, is more interesting than a +0.5 without restriction. My solution doesn't remove the "make hard choices", it just means that every time you make the choice, you get a benefit.
Strange how thats how the game works out isn't.
One of the benefits of Pathfinder over 3.5, IMO, is the reduction of "dead levels". Levels where you pretty much didn't get anything, other than +1 BAB and a saving throw or two. I like that, because boring or useless rewards aren't really rewards. A 19 Intelligence is worthless, except that you can increase it to 20, but that's 8 levels of waiting. A +1 that does nothing until you wait until you get another +1 is boring. I am opposed to boring.
Strange how thats how the game works out isn't.One of the benefits of Pathfinder over 3.5, IMO, is the reduction of "dead levels". Levels where you pretty much didn't get anything, other than +1 BAB and a saving throw or two. I like that, because boring or useless rewards aren't really rewards. A 19 Intelligence is worthless, except that you can increase it to 20, but that's 8 levels of waiting. A +1 that does nothing until you wait until you get another +1 is boring. I am opposed to boring.
I wouldn't say "worthless" because it can affect feats and spell levels but I generally prefer even values over odd ones too.
What if I multiclass? What if I play a concept that doesn't necessarily fit the archetype of the class? What if I simply want to boost one of my other stats, maybe for a feat or prestige class?That sounds awful.What exactly sounds awful? Because the Fighter is getting the same exact bonus as he was before. Your bonus from Str goes from +4 to +5 at level 4. Then at level 12, it goes from +5 to +6. This is exactly what would have happened if you had put every increase into Str.Are you trying to suggest these are unsolvable and insurmountable problems? Because this was an off the cuff idea, so I'm sorry I don't have concrete answers to every possible scenario you can come up with. I haven't even tried using it in a game.
I think a whole +1, with some restrictions, is more interesting than a +0.5 without restriction. My solution doesn't remove the "make hard choices", it just means that every time you make the choice, you get a benefit.
I'm not really against having a score go up by 2 (thus, +1 modifier) when you get ability score increases. However, PF (nor what it is based on) was not built with that concept in mind, so it might not be very balanced to just drop it in. That being said, I doubt it would break the game - characters would just be a bit stronger, but the GM can account for that during the game.
Regardless, I do not like the idea of my class determining which ability scores go up at what point, in a game that attracts so many people -because- of the design theory to allow creativity to overcome restrictions.
When I say the game was built with the assumption that this is possible, I mean the actual d20 game itself. There was an official Wizards of the Coast downloadable adventure for low level characters which you can download (and I think still download...yes, here: A Dark and Stormy Knight) which features some gauntlets that grant a +1 Strength bonus.
I had to respond when I saw this as I know this module as I have run it. There are NO gauntlets in this module as treasure but their is a Belt that gives +1 Strength but ONLY for the purpose of carrying capacity. Exactly like the new MW Backpack put into Pathfinder.
The full info here:
Lifting Belt: This heavy leather kidney belt features brass studs and large buckles on both sides. Anyone wearing it gains a +1 enhancement bonus to Strength for the purpose of determining his carrying capacity. The belt does not alter the wearer’s actual Strength score, nor does it change his Str modifier. This effect does not stack with that provided by any other bonus to Strength.
Faint conjuration; CL 1st; Craft Wondrous Item,
bull’s strength; Price: 500 gp.
Everyone is so into attacking SKR its getting sick and stupid especially when they quote invalid information.
I had to respond when I saw this as I know this module as I have run it. There are NO gauntlets in this module as treasure but their is a Belt that gives +1 Strength but ONLY for the purpose of carrying capacity. Exactly like the new MW Backpack put into Pathfinder.Everyone is so into attacking SKR its getting sick and stupid especially when they quote invalid information.
You should of waited to respond until you read further. That issue was already brought up. Its already been admitted that it was an error, and she (I assume Ashiel is female, at least the avatar is) possibly misremembered what adventure the item she was thinking of was in.
There is no reason to bring up the issue again.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On a side note, I miss those "Developer's Corner" articles that used to be released on the WOTC boards, that gave the insight to things like this. Though I know they do not have the time to do that kind of thing on a regular basis here, I would be very interested to attend a "Developer's Workshop" similar to the "GMing 101" workshop that I heard was going to be at PaizoCon.
Thank you Sean for taking time out of your day to give us insight to the Developers' thoughts on the matter.
|
|
I had to respond when I saw this as I know this module as I have run it. There are NO gauntlets in this module as treasure but their is a Belt that gives +1 Strength but ONLY for the purpose of carrying capacity. Exactly like the new MW Backpack put into Pathfinder.Everyone is so into attacking SKR its getting sick and stupid especially when they quote invalid information.
You should of waited to respond until you read further. That issue was already brought up. Its already been admitted that it was an error, and she (I assume Ashiel is female, at least the avatar is) possibly misremembered what adventure the item she was thinking of was in.
There is no reason to bring up the issue again.
Except she is still saying it exists in some other module. She isn't saying she is wrong, she is saying she cited the wrong module.
So her claim remains that the item exists, she just can't find it and SKR is still wrong.
I had to respond when I saw this as I know this module as I have run it. There are NO gauntlets in this module as treasure but their is a Belt that gives +1 Strength but ONLY for the purpose of carrying capacity. Exactly like the new MW Backpack put into Pathfinder.Everyone is so into attacking SKR its getting sick and stupid especially when they quote invalid information.
You should of waited to respond until you read further. That issue was already brought up. Its already been admitted that it was an error, and she (I assume Ashiel is female, at least the avatar is) possibly misremembered what adventure the item she was thinking of was in.
There is no reason to bring up the issue again.
Except she is still saying it exists in some other module. She isn't saying she is wrong, she is saying she cited the wrong module.
So her claim remains that the item exists, she just can't find it and SKR is still wrong.
If you read my posts as much as you try to trash them, you'd find that to be false.
I admit to being wrong concerning the adventure. Rummaging through my 3.0 material looking for the reference, I realized I may have been thinking of the items in NWN-1; which was entirely my own mistake (and I acknowledged my mistake of citing the wrong source some posts back).
|
|
If you read my posts as much as you try to trash them, you'd find that to be false.
I admit to being wrong concerning the adventure. Rummaging through my 3.0 material looking for the reference, I realized I may have been thinking of the items in NWN-1; which was entirely my own mistake (and I acknowledged my mistake of citing the wrong source some posts back).
So you admit that Sean is correct and there has never been a +1 item in any WoTC or Pathfinder module.
Which is, you know, not an accident or coincidence.
Also, criticizing my reading your posts in a thread where you admit you linked to an AP you didn't read before linking to is kind of funny. Within the various walls of posts, I missed your retraction of your earlier argument.
My bad.
I also noted you said that you never claimed to be a rules guru, then later linked to a number of your guides.