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.
Yeah, go figure. There's obviously no difference between grabbing the links to an adventure you had read and ran some years ago, and reading the text of the people you're actually talking with. No difference at all. /sarcasm
I also noted you said that you never claimed to be a rules guru, then later linked to a number of your guides.
?_?
Are you saying that it's impossible to have a working knowledge of the rules without claiming that you are infallible? There is no one who does not make mistakes. You've made them. I've made them. Hell, the fact that the Paizo rules can't even figure out what monks are doing is proof that even those in charge of the rules make mistakes with them. But no, I didn't claim to be a "rules guru". I did say I have a working knowledge of the rules though.
Where is a *** ****ed ignore feature when you need it?
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.
This was an off the cuff idea. I think alternating between primary/secondary is useful, since the major effects of stat increases aren't accelerated. Someone increasing their Str only doesn't do it any faster than normal, which I think is key for the concept to be as easy as possible to add to the game.
Character classes already limit what stats you're going to emphasis. I doubt many people play Fighters where Str, Dex or Con is not tied for being their highest stat. Sure, you might play an intelligent Fighter, but are going 12 Str/Dex/Con and 18 Int? Probably not. That concept isn't voided by my suggestion either though, by level 8, you'd still get to bump your Int. the only difference is you're also guaranteed a full bump to Str/Dex/Con.
Mostly what I would want to avoid is a class only bumping their most useful stats, or a single stat, as that would increase the power curve of the game much more.
Irontruth, that is quite a useful house-rule. I like the idea, I don't believe it should become RAW, but I would definitely use it at my table. I like characters which are not just focused on a single stat, and your house-rule is a great way to enforce that. I myself have been known to build wisdom-heavy fighters.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When you create a guide on how to play, and send people to it, you are implying you are an expert. You are literally saying "Here is the guide I wrote on how to do this"
Much like when you say an adventure has an item, and you post a link to it, you are implying you read the adventure and the item you are linking to actually does what it says it does.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Firstly there is the fact Sean K. Reynolds is simply wrong, since I actually posted a WotC endorsed adventure that you download from their site with an item that grants a +1 enhancement bonus to Strength.Fair enough (I'll admit my ignorance that I haven't read every single PDF Wizards has produced).
Bad SKR, bad! You should return to your office and do nothing but read old WotC material instead of working on Paizo products (j/k)
|
|
Bad SKR, bad! You should return to your office and do nothing but read old WotC material instead of working on Paizo products (j/k)Firstly there is the fact Sean K. Reynolds is simply wrong, since I actually posted a WotC endorsed adventure that you download from their site with an item that grants a +1 enhancement bonus to Strength.Fair enough (I'll admit my ignorance that I haven't read every single PDF Wizards has produced).
Or just read the one that was posted that didn't include such an item :)
This was an off the cuff idea. I think alternating between primary/secondary is useful, since the major effects of stat increases aren't accelerated. Someone increasing their Str only doesn't do it any faster than normal, which I think is key for the concept to be as easy as possible to add to the game.
Character classes already limit...
I don't want the game to tell me what my primary and secondary stats are. I want to decide that.
Yeah, there are fighters who go for the mental stats, yielding a different character than what one might expect, but what about something a little different, like a monk? Are my primary stats Str, Dex, Con, Wis? Do I only get 3 of those? What if I want to drop a point in my 12 Int to be able to qualify for Combat Expertise?
What if it's a class that can be done multiple ways? Say a cleric - I can go casting, boosting Wis to the max, with maybe some Con and Dex, but maybe I want to play a melee type, so I now want Str.
I understand that you want the +1 modifier (as opposed to +0.5) every 4th level, and by doing so, you're opening up a whole new can of worms with classes boosting just one stat too high (I mean, that is just a nightmare for GMs when it comes to pure casters), but me, I am more willing to keep the emphasis on starting stats, as opposed to the increases from levels, than I am to allow the system dictate what I must do with the increases.
Feat prerequisites would be based on the bonus, because we're discarding the old stats after creation. So you'd decide if combat expertise required a +1 or +2, there would be no 12 or 13's. I would lean towards +1.
A monk could benefit greatly, as could any MAD class by adjusting which stats are in the primary and secondary sets. Instead of looking for a way to make it worse, can you imagine a way it could be better for the monk? I understand if you can't because you are opposed to such a system, but then there really isn't any point to hashing out details to something you don't want and will never use.
Instead of primary/secondary stat, why not just physical/mental stat alternating? Sure, would benefit some classes that have high use of both (paladins, bards, monks) but probably wouldn't break anything.
EDIT: Oh, btw, and even if you went primary/secondary based on class, it would be hard to determine. What are the three primary for a paladin? Cha, str and... what? For monk? Str, Wis, and... what? For a wizard, Int and... what?
Instead of primary/secondary stat, why not just physical/mental stat alternating? Sure, would benefit some classes that have high use of both (paladins, bards, monks) but probably wouldn't break anything.
EDIT: Oh, btw, and even if you went primary/secondary based on class, it would be hard to determine. What are the three primary for a paladin? Cha, str and... what? For monk? Str, Wis, and... what? For a wizard, Int and... what?
Hm, I could name the assumed best stats for classes, but sometimes you want to go outside the mold. For example, for one of my Paladins I had a 7 Constitution. :P
Mental/physical isn't a bad split. Most classes, but necessarily all, would probably include Con, unless something else fit better. For wizard, my picks would be Int, Wis and Con. But you could easily decide that some classes only have 2 primaries. Part of the idea isn't to just make the secondary bumps freebies, but something to add to the class that doesn't dramatically change the power level. I do like using it to help MAD classes a little over the course of their careers.
Hm, I could name the assumed best stats for classes, but sometimes you want to go outside the mold. For example, for one of my Paladins I had a 7 Constitution. :P
Yes, but if you get to determine yourself, it's best to NOT have stats you like as primary stats. Ideally, you want your highest priority-stat to be a primary and your second highest priority to be a secondary stat.
Regardless of if you fill out what stats are primary/secondary or if you let players choose some of them there'll be issues. Better then to just let them choose both.
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?
If Sean K Reynolds, James Jacobs, or ANY of the paizo staff came out and actually said "No, odd numbered magic items aren't allowed." that would be enough for me. I have NEVER seen a 1d8+5 cure light wounds potion in any wotc/pathinder books and posts. Does that mean that EVERY cure light wounds potion even those made by players has to be 1d8+1? No, cure light wounds potions are simply made that way for convenience. Just because something doesn't exist in the books doesn't mean that it's against the rules. There are so many combinations of magic items that it would take up a whole core rulebook just to pen them all down. It is for this reason that they made a table.
There's lots of stuff we don't say in the magic item creation section, including "you can't create at an-will true strike item for 2,000 gp.
That would be true right? except for that annotation at the bottom that says "If item is continuous or unlimited, not charged, determine cost as if it had 100 charges. If it has some daily limit, determine as if it had 50 charges." An at will true strike item would be at least 40k if not more going by the magic creation guidelines.
At Will True Strike Item Spell Level (1) x Caster Level x (1) x 2,000 gp /.05 = 40,000 gp
It's not explicitly forbidden by the rules, but that doesn't mean you should allow it. The game also doesn't say that dead characters can't take actions...
The two things are completely unrelated. There is no basis for a dead character to take any actions, there IS a basis for odd numbered magic items.
I have asked my question three times and while others have answered to the affirmative or to the negative you have not provided an answer. You keep making allusions to what has been done in the past but have brought to light no ruling or statement that proves me wrong. I will ask for a fourth time, a question directed at mr Sean K Reynolds. Please, I am only asking for a straight answer, I get that there is a whole lot of implied stuff going on but please answer by the letter of the rules.
"Is it against the rules (published not implied, this includes offical messageboard posts) that I have an odd numbered magic item."
Possible Answers
It's not hard, yes or no answer.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Roshan, you are beating a dead horse. He has said that it is the intention of the developers to allow it. If your GM can be talked into it, then by all means go for it, but you are not going to be able to use the developer's intent as an argument for your case. Simple as that.
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?If Sean K Reynolds, James Jacobs, or ANY of the paizo staff came out and actually said "No, odd numbered magic items aren't allowed." that would be enough for me. Tell me exactly how it is implied that they aren't allowed? Because none exist on the loot tables? Neither do 1d8+5 cure light wounds potions. Does that mean they're not allowed either?
There's lots of stuff we don't say in the magic item creation section, including "you can't create at an-will true strike item for 2,000 gp.That would be true right? except for that annotation at the bottom that says "If item is continuous or unlimited, not charged, determine cost as if it had 100 charges. If it has some daily limit, determine as if it had 50 charges." An at will true strike item would be at least 40k if not more going by the magic creation guidelines.
** spoiler omitted **
It's not explicitly forbidden by the rules, but that doesn't mean you should allow it. The game also doesn't say that dead characters can't take actions...The two things are completely unrelated. There is no basis for a dead character to take any actions, there IS a basis for odd numbered magic items.
I have asked my question three times and while others have answered to the affirmative or to the negative you have not provided an answer. You keep making allusions to what has been done in the past but have brought to light no ruling or statement that proves me wrong. I will ask for a fourth time, a question directed at you, Sean K Reynolds.
"Is it against the rules...
Sean answered you in his first post, the one directly after your original post:
Odd-bonus ability score items are deliberately not in the game.
I don't know how he could have said any more specifically "no." He said the items were deliberately not in the game. Any magic item a crafter creates which is not listed in source material, but custom made, is a house-rule item. So, unless you house-rule that the item can exist, it is illegal.
Neverwinter Nights 2 had some zany odd-numbered magic items and things, but those games did have plenty of oddities in regards to the translation from tabletop to computer.
Look, I'm not beating a dead horse, I'm not trying to be an ass. I just wanted a clear answer, yes or no to my question, It's all I ever wanted.
Imagine for a moment you went to mcdonalds and asked "I'd like some extra Ketchup" and they said "Ketchup (also catsup, tomato sauce, or red sauce) is a sweet-and-tangy food sauce, typically made from tomatoes, vinegar, a sweetener, and assorted seasonings and spices."
I just want some stupid ketchup.
By mabven's description of magic items a potion or wand not at level one is illegal, a +1 Bane Thundering Greatsword is illegal. Just because it isn't in the books doesn't mean that it's against the rules.
Just wanted an answer to a question that's all, yes or no, but I guess that's asking too much.
|
|
The Devs always try not to say "no" to anything if they are able, because they want people to house rule if they want.
This gets twisted and exploited in some games, but in this instance it is very clear that it isn't intended to be part of the rule set.
House rules are like modifications on your car. If they work for you, great. But you void the warranty and so you can no longer complain if it doesn't run well anymore.
The Devs always try not to say "no" to anything if they are able, because they want people to house rule if they want.
This gets twisted and exploited in some games, but in this instance it is very clear that it isn't intended to be part of the rule set.
House rules are like modifications on your car. If they work for you, great. But you void the warranty and so you can no longer complain if it doesn't run well anymore.
Last post I promise.
No has never stopped anyone from houseruling anything ever ever.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sean said that it has never been in a book, and would never be in a book approved by rules developers. Meaning if he, or anyone who wrote the rules, ever saw it in print they would say "no"
He can't be any more clear about it without saying "Absolutely no, you can't do that in your game, period".
Which is about as far as a Dev is going to go, since they know it is your game.
So the people who wrote the game would not allow it.
So if you want their opinion, there it is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As far as I can tell, the answer is this:
You are allowed to do it.
But if you do, it's a houserule.
You are allowed to have houserules.
Roshan >> To try to answer your question as direct as I can while being absolutely nobody of consequence (sorry, just another forum mook):
Odd-bonus ability score items are deliberately not in the game.
This is not the same as "this is against the rules". Being deliberately not in the game is a very succinct and definitive discouragement, however it is not against the rules.
I checked the rules on this as much as I could. As far as I can tell, it is perfectly valid within the rules.
It may not be RAI (in fact, having a developer specifically say intent is the most clear RAI you can get), but it is allowable by RAW. These abbreviations have a difference.
I've been reading all of these posts from the beginning and I've seen a lot of good arguments for both sides of the opinion. Honestly, I can see both rulings as fair for each game.
However, each opinion stated seems a little lackluster in basis. There's a lot of "this is unfair" and "this is unbalanced" or "this was how it was always done". None of these have any real backbone. I understand that Paizo developers seem agreed upon intent, but I still am a little uncertain on a clear reason why.
So, if I get time, I'm going to really try to do a comparison plot graph of the important statistics. Item costs are usually exponential by level, and ability modifiers are a floored linear graph. Add in the bonuses at static level 4 intervals and you get a slightly smoother parabola. I'm very curious to see if adding additional plot points that are odd interval ability scores change the shape of any graph in a significant way.
Feat prerequisites would be based on the bonus, because we're discarding the old stats after creation. So you'd decide if combat expertise required a +1 or +2, there would be no 12 or 13's. I would lean towards +1.
A monk could benefit greatly, as could any MAD class by adjusting which stats are in the primary and secondary sets. Instead of looking for a way to make it worse, can you imagine a way it could be better for the monk? I understand if you can't because you are opposed to such a system, but then there really isn't any point to hashing out details to something you don't want and will never use.
Picking primaries and secondaries doesn't work - it was already brought up that ideally, you would have your most important stat as a primary, then second most important stat as a secondary, so you can always be boosting stats you want higher than the rest.
I have already explained how a class governing which stats can increase at what point does not sound enjoyable to me. To clarify myself on this, I want to make sure you understand that I am not against that in most games, but in a game like PF, with its main attraction to me being that it is limitless in scope, something like that irks me.
A possible idea might be to tie primaries to a race, but again, you run into similar issues with concepts of a character conflicting with conceptions of a race.
What if you just do away with primaries and secondaries? Just make this rule: You cannot increase a stat more than once in a row.
You keep people from boosting just one stat just as easily as with the primary/secondary method, but you don't restrict them with assumptions of what a class or race should be.
Again, this would be a relatively substantial boost to power (looking at wizards with 22 Int at 4th level or two handed fighters rocking 22 Str) but again, the GM can take that into account and plan accordingly.
My group's general rule is that we allow them, but only one odd ability score increase per character. This helps out odd scores a little, but isn't terribly overpowered. I can see how it can get problematic in an extreme case, but limiting it to one stat isn't game-breaking.
Also, even though we allow the one odd stat bump, multiple-score headbands and belts must have equal stats, so no +1/+2 item (so you go +2/+2 and basically waste the extra 1, but no big deal), or anything like that. I don't believe this is truly necessary for balancing, but it's also not necessary to remove as a limitation. The one odd stat is plenty help.
Yup, I don't know how else to explain how this can be a freeing concept. I'm not trying to present an ironclad idea, but a malleable concept, that while still requiring a player to make difficult choices, makes every choice a reward and fruitful, regardless of what the choice before it or after was. Not that planning a character shouldn't be rewarded, but rather each individual choice should be rewarded as well, not just the aggregate. But I think any replacement idea should be close in power level to the current method, though a slight increase in power is okay.
That would be true right? except for that annotation at the bottom that says "If item is continuous or unlimited, not charged, determine cost as if it had 100 charges. If it has some daily limit, determine as if it had 50 charges." An at will true strike item would be at least 40k if not more going by the magic creation guidelines.
It is interesting how some people misread this line. That line is a superscript addition to the material component cost line. The Material Component Cost line only applies to magic items that replicate a spell with an expensive (ie: over 1gp) material component cost and only affects the cost of the item as per expensive material components.
Example: I craft a command activated, unlimited charge wondrous item of raise dead. The cost (by formula) of the magic is 5*9*1800 = 81,000gp. However, there is also an expensive (5,000gp) material component. Thus, 100*5,000gp = 500,000gp. The final pricing is 581,000gp.
Example 2: I craft a command activated, 1 charge per day wondrous item of Raise Dead. The cost (by formula) of the magic is 5*9*1800/5 = 16,200gp. The cost of the material component is 50*5,000gp = 250,000gp. Final pricing is 266,200gp.
- Gauss
|
|
I think the Devs believe it is a slippery slope into power creep to have a half priced item give full price benefits. And it encourages metagaming since you have to know your character is "a half" away rather than just giving an item that gives a bonus.
Some people don't care about that. Some do. The Devs do, so they made that the rule they follow when developing items.
If you want the Devs opinion, and they give it, take it or leave it. But if you are going to leave it if they don't agree with you, why ask in the first place.
You are just going to do what you want anyway.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you want the Devs opinion, and they give it, take it or leave it. But if you are going to leave it if they don't agree with you, why ask in the first place.
You are just going to do what you want anyway.
Sometimes it's nice to have insight as to why something works the way it does. All house rules carry some side effects and it's important to know what they might be going in.
The is essentially what Buhlman did when he talked to Cook about how 3.5 was designed. Pathfinder is basically the house ruled version of 3.5.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have asked my question three times and while others have answered to the affirmative or to the negative you have not provided an answer. You keep making allusions to what has been done in the past but have brought to light no ruling or statement that proves me wrong. I will ask for a fourth time, a question directed at mr Sean K Reynolds. Please, I am only asking for a straight answer, I get that there is a whole lot of implied stuff going on but please answer by the letter of the rules.
"Is it against the rules (published not implied, this includes offical messageboard posts) that I have an odd numbered magic item."
Possible Answers
Yes it is, (cite page and book number)
No it isn't
It's not hard, yes or no answer.
Yes, but I can't cite a specific quote. Here's the logic to get to that answer, though:
1) There are no printed examples of odd-stat magic items.
2) There are no rules allowing players to create any items that are not on the list of magic items.
3) There are rules to allow the GM to price out magic items which don't exist on the list of magic items.
4) Therefore, it is against the rules to have any custom item, unless the GM specifically permits it.
5) The rules assume that the GM has not changed the rules.
6) Therefore, unless the GM changes the rules to permit items which are not on the published lists, you can't have odd-stat magic items.
In other words, odd-stat magic items are illegal unless the GM makes a house rule to allow them. Obviously, the GM could allow odd-stat magic items without also opening the door to "build any item you want", just as the GM could say "potions can go up to 5th level spells" without opening the door to odd-stat magic items. But without a house rule, they don't exist.
I think the Devs believe it is a slippery slope into power creep to have a half priced item give full price benefits.
Well, it's not quite half priced, as the price increase is exponential. This doesn't deter from the real focus of your point however, and I'm willing to try to do a cost comparison to see for certain.
The trick is, there IS a discouragement for using these items. It may be cheaper for instant gratification, but it limits the effectiveness of raising that ability score again. The next increase of the ability will put you back into the same boat with wasted money. You get the benefit early but have to face the exact same choices and character planning at a single level 4 offset.
And it encourages metagaming since you have to know your character is "a half" away rather than just giving an item that gives a bonus.
This is true after a fashion, but I wonder about it. MANY items require intrinsic knowledge about your character for it to make sense as a choice. I'm uncertain if this even counts as meta-gaming, as you should be able to use carrying capacities and "lifting" as a measure of yourself and your abilities. A character with 13 strength can, without meta-gaming, know that they are a little bit stronger than a character with 12.
why ask in the first place.
Because asking why is the first step towards better understanding, learning, and possible progress towards improvement. Generally, I think asking why should be done as often as possible and in every facet of life.
1) There are no printed examples of odd-stat magic items. No quote, since you can't cite what isn't there.
2) There are no rules allowing players to create any items that are not on the list of magic items. No quote, but see point 3.
3) There are rules to allow the GM to price out magic items which don't exist on the list of magic items. Implied from Magic Item Creation: "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." If the GM isn't the one to set the price, then who is?
4) Therefore, it is against the rules to have any custom item, unless the GM specifically permits it.
5) The rules assume that the GM has not changed the rules. Although they specifically permit the GM to do so, they obviously can't adjust for any changes.
6) Therefore, unless the GM changes the rules to permit items which are not on the published lists, you can't have odd-stat magic items.
Numbers 1 and 2 are based upon omission of a ruling being equivalent to being against the rules. This seems incorrect to me.
Numbers 1 and 2 are added to 3 to create a "therefore" response in 4. Using deductive reasoning as your logical method, this ends up being a logical fallacy because your conditional statements are debatable.
Number 5 is quite literally an assumption that I see no verbal bearing of.
Number 6 becomes your final conclusion, and is reached on faulty logic.
The point of the matter is that nothing is against the rules unless the rules specifically state something that clarifies the boundaries that the rules operate in. There is NO mention in the books that make a boundary for even ability scores and magical items.
There isn't additional discouragement because you can just upgrade the item at no loss compared to not allowing odd bonuses. And that IS in the rules.
Well, it's not against the rules to fly either. Nothing says you can't fly at your base land speed by flapping your arms even if you don't have a fly speed. Omission of rules may or may not be the same as being "against the rules" - personally we use a method of "if possible IRL, omission of rules means we should determine based on IRL (such as no acting while dead); if not possible (such as flying by flapping arms), it's against the rules unless house ruled".
There isn't additional discouragement because you can just upgrade the item at no loss compared to not allowing odd bonuses. And that IS in the rules.
You are correct. This is why I actually want to graph some of this stuff when I get time. I'd love to see what this changes mathematically.
Well, it's not against the rules to fly either. Nothing says you can't fly at your base land speed by flapping your arms even if you don't have a fly speed.
You're right, it's not against the rules to fly by flapping your arms real hard. People shouldn't say that it is, and that is exactly my point.
If posters are going to argue RAI, but say RAW, they should say RAI. The OP specifically asked for an only RAW response, making RAI irrelevant.
This doesn't mean that RAI can't be discussed though. Conversations do evolve and there are certainly good reasons and points being addressed. I'm merely trying to separate the context of what the OP wanted and what is being talked about separately.
You're right, it's not against the rules to fly by flapping your arms real hard. People shouldn't say that it is, and that is exactly my point.
If posters are going to argue RAI, but say RAW, they should say RAI. The OP specifically asked for an only RAW response, making RAI irrelevant.
This doesn't mean that RAI can't be discussed though. Conversations do evolve and there are certainly good reasons and points being addressed. I'm merely trying to separate the context of what the OP wanted and what is being talked about separately.
If something is not in the rules, they are not RAW. Saying something is not RAW and saying something is against the RAW are different things, I agree, but mostly it's just semantics to me anyway. Especially when it's also not RAI.
but mostly it's just semantics to me anyway.
Oh, I agree, but the OP said:
"Is it against the rules (published not implied, this includes offical messageboard posts) that I have an odd numbered magic item."
Possible Answers
Yes it is, (cite page and book number)
No it isn't
If he's going to request a direct and semantically valued answer, he can have it.
Yes. I would though specify that it is not against the rules in the same way that it is not against the rules to run around throwing fireballs at people while dead and not against the rules to fly by flapping your arms.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. I would though specify that it is not against the rules in the same way that it is not against the rules to run around throwing fireballs at people while dead and not against the rules to fly by flapping your arms.
Fair enough! ^.^
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. I would though specify that it is not against the rules in the same way that it is not against the rules to run around throwing fireballs at people while dead and not against the rules to fly by flapping your arms.
Dead
When your character's current hit points drop to a negative amount equal to his Constitution score or lower, or if he succumbs to massive damage, he's dead. A character can also die from taking ability damage or suffering an ability drain that reduces his Constitution score to 0 (see Special Abilities).
Certain types of powerful magic, such as raise dead and resurrection, can restore life to a dead character. See Magic for more information.
If you wanna get into the kinda technical, strict RAW, 'RAI be damned' bullcrap that so often gets thrown around on these forums, having the condition dead doesn't actually prevent you from taking any actions, at least from this definition. Technically, it's just a status effect that doesn't actually come with any modifiers.
Likewise, I don't think it states anywhere in the rules that you cannot fly by flapping your arms.
I think the Devs believe it is a slippery slope into power creep to have a half priced item give full price benefits. And it encourages metagaming since you have to know your character is "a half" away rather than just giving an item that gives a bonus.
Some people don't care about that. Some do. The Devs do, so they made that the rule they follow when developing items.
If you want the Devs opinion, and they give it, take it or leave it. But if you are going to leave it if they don't agree with you, why ask in the first place.
You are just going to do what you want anyway.
If they can't tell the difference, how do they know what to improve? Isn't that encouraging metagaming? How do they tell the difference between other items without metagaming?
Anything you say about metagaming for odd number stat items can be applied to other aspects of the RAW game.
Kthulu: That's exactly what I meant.
Irontruth: The difference is that roughly 50% of the people in the world (assuming most people have the standard/heroic array) will be better at fighting by having it. The other half won't be. There is no knowledge of this for the CHARACTERS. That only some characters, and which characters, can benefit from a pearl of power is knowable for _characters_, because it's possible to for a character to determine if it is a prepared or spontaneous spellcaster. It's possible for a CHARACTER to determine whether or not it will be able to use a Holy Sword.
Yes, technically there IS a way to determine who would be helped by a belt of strength +1 via encumbrance, but it's awkward as heck and not really feasible that knowledge of that would be accessible in a game world.
1) There are no printed examples of odd-stat magic items. No quote, since you can't cite what isn't there.
2) There are no rules allowing players to create any items that are not on the list of magic items. No quote, but see point 3.
3) There are rules to allow the GM to price out magic items which don't exist on the list of magic items. Implied from Magic Item Creation: "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." If the GM isn't the one to set the price, then who is?
4) Therefore, it is against the rules to have any custom item, unless the GM specifically permits it.
5) The rules assume that the GM has not changed the rules. Although they specifically permit the GM to do so, they obviously can't adjust for any changes.
6) Therefore, unless the GM changes the rules to permit items which are not on the published lists, you can't have odd-stat magic items.Numbers 1 and 2 are based upon omission of a ruling being equivalent to being against the rules. This seems incorrect to me.
Numbers 1 and 2 are added to 3 to create a "therefore" response in 4. Using deductive reasoning as your logical method, this ends up being a logical fallacy because your conditional statements are debatable.
Number 5 is quite literally an assumption that I see no verbal bearing of.
Number 6 becomes your final conclusion, and is reached on faulty logic.
The point of the matter is that nothing is against the rules unless the rules specifically state something that clarifies the boundaries that the rules operate in. There is NO mention in the books that make a boundary for even ability scores and magical items.
The fundamental assumption of d20-type games is that unless you have a rules source to allow you to do something that the rules cover, you can't. The rules cover flying, so you need a rules source to let you fly (a fly speed or a spell, in this case). The rules don't cover eating/digesting/excreting, so that's up to the GM. They do cover ingesting poison, however, so that aspect of eating needs to follow those rules or be house ruled.
In this case, they cover crafting magic items. Therefore, you can only craft magic items in a way that follows the specified rules. If the rules don't specify some way in which you can create a kneebrace of stability, then you can't create one. Unless the GM says you can (and thereby creates a house rule that permits it).
If you disagree with that assertion, then we lack sufficient common ground to have a rule discussion based on, and I'll bow out.
If you disagree with that assertion, then we lack sufficient common ground to have a rule discussion based on, and I'll bow out.
I agree with your assertion actually. This primary difference is that in this assertion you said:
The fundamental assumption of d20-type games
The OP asked specifically for a yes-no "against the rules" citation. Your fundamental assumption, while I would attest to being entirely correct, is not what the OP had requested.
What I'm saying is that I agree with you, but in a different context.
If you disagree with that assertion, then we lack sufficient common ground to have a rule discussion based on, and I'll bow out.I agree with your assertion actually. This primary difference is that in this assertion you said:
The fundamental assumption of d20-type gamesThe OP asked specifically for a yes-no "against the rules" citation. Your fundamental assumption, while I would attest to being entirely correct, is not what the OP had requested.
What I'm saying is that I agree with you, but in a different context.
It's true, it's not what Roshan was looking for. The point I was going for was that I can't cite something that doesn't exist, but the lack of its existence is itself significant. Because really, that's all there is to stand on.
Ashiel, you have earned back a degree of respect for your apologies. I still have my doubts as to whether or not you intentionally lied to prove a point or not. However, no words from anyone can prove that either way so it is useless to dwell on it. All that can really be expected is a retraction and apology and you have done that so I guess we are as cool on that as we can be.
However, there are still some major issues with your approach. For instance, "The game was built with the assumption that you can indeed have odd ability score items." after Sean had said "Odd-bonus ability score items are deliberately not in the game." That is deliberately contradicting the developer on what the intention of the game developers is. To later say you do not have a dog in that fight doesn't really make sense.
You also said that you do not disrespect people on the boards which is not true. I pointed out in my last post that you called someone's idea "stupid". You said, "The argument that it's a magic item that one character gets more out of than another is stupid."
And finally when you say things like, "...I've been active with this game on a level that borders on obsessive since it debuted..." it does come across like you are displaying your nerd cred and presenting yourself as an expert. I'm really not sure what the intention of a statement like that is if not to establish that you are a self-proclaimed expert on a topic.
The only other thing I have to add to this thread is that I find it ironic that when a Dev says that it is intentionally left out of the game that some people are still trying to twist that into, "But its not expressly disallowed, right?"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However, there are still some major issues with your approach. For instance, "The game was built with the assumption that you can indeed have odd ability score items." after Sean had said "Odd-bonus ability score items are deliberately not in the game." That is deliberately contradicting the developer on what the intention of the game developers is. To later say you do not have a dog in that fight doesn't really make sense.
I meant that the rules themselves assume it's possible. It gives the mechanics to produce odd ability score items and has done so since its inception. So by RAW, it has been possible to do so since it debuted. If a GM wants to know what the value of a +odd stat item is, it has been in the game since the beginning; and the game can deal with it.
[quite]You also said that you do not disrespect people on the boards which is not true. I pointed out in my last post that you called someone's idea "stupid". You said, "The argument that it's a magic item that one character gets more out of than another is stupid."
Perhaps we have a different idea about respect. Describing a point as stupid does not make the person behind that point stupid. It is indeed stupid to suggest that the reason they aren't allowed is because certain characters get more use out of them. If that same argument was applied equally, we would see that there would be no Holy Avengers (it's just an overpriced +2 sword for anyone who doesn't have a level of Paladin), no robes of the X archmagi (they're just robes to most, give negative levels to others, and function amazingly for a small subset of characters). So it would need to be more than that. Sean explained their mathematical explanation of it (which I feel is fair in a rolling environment).
For example, if Bob_Loblaw (a friend of mine, I would say) and I are arguing or debating (and we do it a lot), we have no problem with one another criticizing our arguments, pointing out logical problems, and so forth. You'll notice, however, we do not insult the other. We could probably go so far as to say "this is the most logically inconsistent hogwash I have ever seen!" and shake hands afterwards and go out for pizza. That's part of being a mature, reasoned, well-adjusted adult. Not everyone is going to agree with you all the time, and they may even express opinions on your opinions. It doesn't mean they're out to eat your babies or want you to lick their boots.
And finally when you say things like, "...I've been active with this game on a level that borders on obsessive since it debuted..." it does come across like you are displaying your nerd cred and presenting yourself as an expert. I'm really not sure what the intention of a statement like that is if not to establish that you are a self-proclaimed expert on a topic.
It would be if you quoted that in the context it was written in. I was asking Sean to explain the thought process behind such a decision, and was noting that despite time + interest, I had not seen anything that made such a decision obvious (particularly since I had said that every game that I had participated in with odd ability score items was improved over even-only).
Context is a funny thing.
The only other thing I have to add to this thread is that I find it ironic that when a Dev says that it is intentionally left out of the game that some people are still trying to twist that into, "But its not expressly disallowed, right?"
That's important to some people, because for many people, their tables are more Lawful. What's RAW is concerned. I've played in plenty of games (especially online) where +1, +3, +5, and similar items would have been entirely fine because RAW you can make them. Just as I have played in games where neutral wizards don't turn Neutral Good just by summoning celestial aurochs constantly, because RAW spell subtypes have no effect on your alignment.
At which point the GM may arbitrate his or her will as desired to deviate from the RAW. If you want a game where summoning celestial badgers makes you go to heaven, then you can do that. If you want to know what the pros & cons of allowing +odd stat items to be created are, then you can check it out (there has been some discussion as to both the positive and negative effects of it).
Asking if it's not expressly disallowed isn't the dirty thing you make it sound like. It means that that person and their group might go in a different direction than expected without having to change anything. A similar example would be making magic apples instead of potions. Perhaps the designers never intended for "potions" to take the form of magic fruit, and they might make a cute trap (sit out some fruit with bad spells on them), and might want to know if there's anything expressly forbidding making "potion-fruit"; or making a "staff" out of a weapon besides a quarterstaff (an eldritch knight might prefer a rune-covered battleaxe or longsword instead).
==========================================
Ultimately the forums are a place to come and share ideas, get some feedback, and so forth. Sean provided good feedback, and the OP has a variety of views on pros vs cons. The only problem is the community who are so interested in starting petty fights that digging through the piles of trash posts about one poster or the other becomes a tedious mess.
I wish that these forums were a bit more like the forums at Giant in the Playground. Those forums are nice, and I can't remember the last time I saw anyone engaging in the kind of trolling and flaming that you see here in a daily basis. Nobody rages on you because of your gaming style, and people are helpful and nice; and their mods don't tolerate things like forum-stalkers or harassment.
I've engaged in debates there too. Lost a few too (and thanked my opponent for it). Not once have I ever had the desire to reach through my screen and punch the other guy for being an absolute jerk (but I've had to take vacations from the Paizo forums for that very reason), and honestly a lot less threads get locked there.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay! I finally got an opportunity to sit down and try to check out some of these "imbalances"!
You can review the PDF:
To understand this thing you need to realize that the important charts are the four unlabeled ones with both a red and blue line graph.
The RED line graph is what happens to the ability modifier if you ALLOW odd ability score enhancing items.
The BLUE line graph is what happens to the ability modifier if you DO NOT ALLOW odd ability score enhancing items.
The first three charts are reference charts. One of them is wealth by level, with is exponential. Another is ability modifier by score, which is a floored linear graph (as would always be expected). The third graph is ability modifier by point cost when building a character. This one surprises me. It isn't linear, exponential, or parabolic in nature. The slope increases, but not exponentially. It also looks like the "perfect" slope for point efficiency lay between 8-13. This doesn't mean that all of your scores should be between these ranges as this chart doesn't reflect the usefulness of your abilities or how MAD your class is.
Beyond that, all the remaining charts are in reference to a single score. Specifically, this operates under the assumption that you are dumping all of your 4-level interval ability score increases into this stat.
There are two variables that change the shape of the curves.
One of them is starting score. It only has two shapes: one for even score and one for odd. Any other number has the same shaped curve but simply moves up the graph to a higher result.
The other is wealth investment. I have done two samples. One is if you spend ALL of your character wealth on getting the ability enhancing items as soon as possible. The other is based upon if you are investing in other things and only concentrating 1/3 of your wealth on ability enhancing items. This does in fact change the effectiveness of the items at each level interval because it will change where you are in the 4-level interval ability score increase progression!
Conclusions:
The shape of the curve doesn't change much between allowing (red) or disallowing (blue) odd enhancing items. In fact, there are some very weird steps on the typical disallowed curves. Take a look at "starting score 19, all wealth spend". Between level 3 and level 4, you suddenly have a drastic character increase that is seen nowhere else. If you only spend 1/3 of your money on your enhancing items, this happens between levels 11 and 12 instead.
Allowing these items appears to almost smooth out the character progression curves.
HOWEVER: It only smooths out the character progression curves in a positive way. Allowing these items is only a benefit. This is the most alluring argument to disallow these items that I can find.
I'm now under the impression, since the benefit is no larger than +1 modifier and it never seems to truly last for longer than 2 levels, that this is far from game breaking.
If anybody insists upon seeing the formulas that created the graphs, I can try to get them to you. I do not have Office and created this in OpenOffice Calc.
I tried to take a look at your work, but I don't have permission to view it. Could you change the permissions so that it is viewable, please.
How about that? I never actually used Google Docs before. I'm surprised they don't mention the permissions at any point during the uploading.
|
|
Of course allowing the items is a benefit to the players.
Each benefit doesn't break the game. Power creep is the death of a thousand cuts, not one. It benefits players with odd numbers, and by doing so devalues players who don't.
And on the whole in increases the power level of the game for players.
Some people aren't bothered by this, and that is fine. But some are, including the Devs, so they aren't included in the game and would have to be house ruled in.
|
|
Just to play devil's advocate for a moment, they don't actually have to be house-ruled into the game. The item creation rules exist, and there's nothing that specifically forbids items that grant an odd bonus to one of your ability scores.
The items listed in the Core Rulebook (and then later expanded upon in the APG) are NOT the only items that exist / can be created. To rule otherwise would, frankly, be a bigger crime against the game than allowing odd-bonus items. It's punishing creativity...something that the d20 iterations already have a tendency towards, due to their bloated concept of "there MUST be a rule for EVERYTHING".
Now then...are odd-bonus items a good idea? Hell no, for all the reasons that have been discussed to death in this thread over the past 200 posts.