Check this out. If you thought Wealth By Level was bad, wait till you get a load of this!
According to the new Ultimate Equipment Guide, there's no way to generate high priced precious gemstones within the rules for some of our most common spell components. For example, you can't make a skeleton or zombie of more than 2 HD with animate dead since onyx gemstones cap out at 65gp each.
This was a problem with v3.0/3.5 and I'm sorry to see it return.
Here's hoping they errata said spells to allow for multiple gems.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stop. Being. Ridiculous.
It's great that you were able to spot this and then instantly connect it to numerous spells. It's indicative of an impressive ability to make associations between minute details.
But seriously dude. Stop being ridiculous.
What's so ridiculous about it? (Besides my presentation.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, Bulmahn already addressed this specifically in response to your comment / question.
You're answer shopping, and it leads to nothing but confusion.
Here's Jason (I.e. the Lord of Rules) helpfully declaring this a non-problem and non-issue.
So use more onyxes, then you have a cap of 65gp*number of onyxes. Which is not a cap at all, really. It's the money that's important in balancing the material cost anyway, not the specific form the items take.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
What's so ridiculous about it? (Besides my presentation.)
Perhaps because its an optional table. It even says "When randomly determining gems, roll on the appropriate grade chart."
It changes nothing. The fact that you play with a GM, who would abuse this chart, to say there are no Onyx or Diamond for certain spells is the problem. Not the chart itself.
It's purpose is for quickly generating gemstones for treasure. As are the other random charts.
I was specifically asked to make a new thread. There's absolutely no need to be calling people names.
Also Ravingdork, is every single item on one of these charts(i don't actually know not having the book yet)?
The entire premise of your argument is that if its not on a chart in Ultimate Equipment Guide then it simply doesn't exist.
There's absolutely no need to be calling people names.
But Jason is the Lord of Rules. I've met him a couple times and he's like, "mess with me and I'll change that rule tomorrow. Don't like it? I'll change it again the day after that!"
It is actually called out specifically as a treasure generating system here.
I thought this would be a great excuse to take a look at the random treasure generation system found in the appendix.
A GM using this to determine what is available everywhere would be using it for something other than its intended use. The rules for what is generally available in a settlement are governed by the rules for settlements, not treasure.
Ravingdork:
I am sorry that you have had poor experiences in the past with gem value limits in 3.x. Honestly, that sounds AWFUL - DMs so overbearing that they don't allow you to stray away from the written rules at all, even if just as little as finding a bigger gem than is explicitly called out as existing. That sounds awful.
However, you are getting worked up over nothing. It is reaching to come to the conclusion you did. Multiple Paizo associates, one of whom is a developer (notably the Lead Designer), have given reasons why these charts do not prevent you from finding the gems you're talking about. If anyone you play with has a problem, simply point them to these posts. If that doesn't work, no one will be able to help you: you will have to help yourself. You might have to find a new group, if it's that big of a deal to you.
If anyone you play with has a problem, simply point them to these posts.
Should it come up, I think I'll do just that. Thanks.
