| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey guys,
I'm after a bit of advice on something my Skulls & Shackles group are trying to pull on me at the moment.
The party's sorcereress has just taken the Inscribe Magical Tattoo feat, from Inner Sea Magic, and is gearing up to start giving all of the party magical tattoos (assuming they want them and will pay for them). I advised them all that since they are essentially slotless items, they'll cost 2x normal cost to craft. Essentially they'll be crafting them at market value.
The player running the sorceress is now arguing that they can take alignment or class restrictions on the tattoos in order to drop the price by 30%,
My view on this is that it's an example of a situation where RAI it shouldn't be possible, and RAW doesn't cover it since the devs are not omniscient and have no way of knowing everything players will come up with.
I've explained my points to the group as follows:
The player has now emailed back saying that the fact the tattoos can't be taken off is actually a disadvantage, since you can't sell them to recover costs and can't replace them. His other argument is that, if you weren't meant to be put these restrictions on tattoos to get discounts, there would be a clause written into the feat saying that.
So, I need some advice here guys. Am I being too harsh here enforcing the 2x normal cost? Or do other people agree that, logically, the benefits (not to mention the fact that the tattoos are already restricted to your personal use) justifies the additional cost and the removal of the option to reduce cost by adding restrictions?
I'm looking for any input on this I can get, I personally feel as if the player is just trying to exploit RAW to get cheaper magical tattoos, but maybe I'm just looking at it from the wrong point of view. So please fellow GMs (and any Devs if you should happen to be watching), lay it on me.
Cheers,
Tinkergoth
I think you're right. It's stupid and cheesy to use restrictions on something that's part of your body just to decrease the price. And being part of your body is also an advantage in that the tattoo can never be taken from you or sunder, so is justification is flimsy.
Here's how you should handle it. Tell him "I AM THE LAW" and that your word is final.
I'm with Albatoonoe on this one, but you really want to give the player of the Sorceress the option of taking another feat. You're changing the rules after the feat was taken.
I think you're right. It's stupid and cheesy to use restrictions on something that's part of your body just to decrease the price. And being part of your body is also an advantage in that the tattoo can never be taken from you or sunder, so is justification is flimsy.
Here's how you should handle it. Tell him "I AM THE LAW" and that your word is final.
Thanks for the quick response and advice. Yeah, I've been tempted to start using the I AM THE LAW approach a few times recently. Maybe I just need a badge or something to remind them of my authority... I could always get a tricorne hat since it's a pirate game.
I'm with Albatoonoe on this one, but you really want to give the player of the Sorceress the option of taking another feat. You're changing the rules after the feat was taken.
Certainly I'll present that as an option, but I'd argue that I'm not exactly changing the rules after the fact on this. There's no rule saying that the discounts don't apply, but similarly there's no rule written saying that they do. I asked them to explain to me how magical tattooing worked (since when they first mentioned it, I didn't have access to Inner Sea Magic), and to break down how the costing worked. They had an opportunity to tell me about wanting to get the restriction discounts then, but didn't.
But yes, as I said, I do agree that I should present the option to change the feat. Thanks for the advice :)
The player running the sorceress is now arguing that they can take alignment or class restrictions on the tattoos in order to drop the price by 30%PF did the game a disservice by removing the bit from 3e which declared custom magic items as variant ... just reverse that decision.
Tell her that custom magic items are variant ... if she wants a tattoo other than the 3 existing ones she has to perform a procedure similar to custom spell research (ie. it costs money and time and might ultimately fail, if you think it's OP).
The existing Tattoo's are not a big problem, the only useful one for non casters is the spell Tattoo one ... more powerful than potions, but not a huge problem because they are single use.
It's not so much the use of tattoo equivalents of wondrous items that I have an issue with, it's the fact that they're trying to justify discounts on them by using rules that don't really apply to the situation.
I'm more than happy for them to have the effects of two differnt belts if they really want to, but they have to be willing to accept the costs that it entails for having what is essentially an extra slot for most of their wondrous item types.
The magical item creation rules are just guidelines, not hard and fast rules. But here are some of the rules that can help in this situation.
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
The 30% discount is for items that are restricted by alignment or class issues.
A magical tattoo isn't like a sword or a belt, it can't be switched to a different person. It is restricted to the person it was created on.
As such the actually worth of the item is unaffected by the added restrictions, because it is already more restricted then that. Since the actual worth of the item isn't reduced then the price of the item should not be reduced either.
It's basically the same reason why you can't have continuous true strike on yourself for 2,000, because the item would be worth more then that.
Huh. This is a new one on me. I explained the concept of RAW vs RAI, and received the following in response:
"Here's my problem with that. It is my solid opinion that there is no such thing as RAI. I believe that the rules are written the way they were meant to be. If something needs to be changed, an FAQ will address it. Otherwise it is my belief that "rules as intended" are exactly as they are written."
I kind of want to point this player towards the Ask James Jacobs Anything thread and tell them to just start from the beginning. Failing that, point them towards the closest PFS group and wave them on their merry way. Note: I don't have any problems with PFS, I just know they play pretty much strict RAW
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First of all, shame on your players for trying to rules-lawyer you with a book you didn't/don't have. Personally I maintain that the only game content allowed is from books I own and like.
Second, shame on them for trying such obviously cheesy tactics. If it looks like cheese, smells like cheese and tastes like cheese, it's cheese. Just tell them not to go there. That's not how you want to play.
Third, you're roughly right for pricing magic tattoos as twice the cost of the same wondrous item. Roughly, because magic tattoos as priced as slotless items; so any wondrous item that is normally slotted should indeed be increased in price. If they make a tattoo that mimics an item that isn't normally slotted, the price should be the same.
Fourth, the guidelines for making magic items are guidelines. You can't really rules-lawyer those, because they're only the starting point, and full of warnings to the GM to intervene if the end result would be unreasonable. RAW says that the GM needs to stay wide awake during the process, and that making custom items is not an iron-clad right, more like a favor, only granted during good behaviour.
Tell your players that those discounts only apply to the MARKET PRICE and not the CRAFTING COST of the tattoos. They can't refute it since that's actually what the rules say.
Item Requires Specific Class or Alignment to Use: Even more restrictive than requiring a skill, this limitation cuts the price by 30%.
If they are only ever putting it on themselves, They wouldn't get any additional benefit out of adding said restrictions. It may even become detrimental should their alignments ever change.
"Ah! It burns the skin!" :D
Even if they were to sell magical tattoos to others, they would only lose money by having said restrictions attached.
The game developers were already well aware of the possibility of abuse on this one when they wrote the game and have already built in limiters.
Huh. This is a new one on me. I explained the concept of RAW vs RAI, and received the following in response:
"Here's my problem with that. It is my solid opinion that there is no such thing as RAI. I believe that the rules are written the way they were meant to be. If something needs to be changed, an FAQ will address it. Otherwise it is my belief that "rules as intended" are exactly as they are written."
Well then just point out the rules I quoted that say that the formulas only provide a starting point and that the price should be modified by actual worth.
Then all you need to explain is that those restrictions don't change the worth as a magical tattoo is already limited to one person, and you can't limit it further then that.
The only way for an item that is already limited to one person in the world to be further restricted by the alignment or class rule would be if it's use was restricted to an alignment or class different then to the one the tattoo is on...
Which would be an odd choice.
Hm... magical items made from leather that was skinned off a magically tattooed person. There has to be a market for that kind of thing.
Thanks for all the advice guys. I really appreciate it.
I explained my call on it to the player, and they've continued to argue. So I'm given them an option. They can:
The third option, if they continue to argue, is that I will agree to run the game as per RAW. Exactly as RAW. I'm curious to see how they react when they realise that all the clever little tricks I've let them get away with only work because I think "Yeah, that's pretty cool, I'll run with it".
I've run this game as fairly as I can, and tried to use my discretion when it comes to Rule 0 to keep things fun for the players and give them a fair chance. I've worked with the players to help them develop their character concepts, and bended things a bit for them to help them meet these ideas. So the fact that this is getting thrown back in my face the first time I make a call that doesn't suit this player is more than a little irritating.
First of all, shame on your players for trying to rules-lawyer you with a book you didn't/don't have. Personally I maintain that the only game content allowed is from books I own and like.
Yeah, I'd honestly have expected a little more gratitude for the fact that I actually went out and bought a copy of this book once he said he was going to start using it, since I knew that he didn't have a copy either.
Tell your players that those discounts only apply to the MARKET PRICE and not the CRAFTING COST of the tattoos. They can't refute it since that's actually what the rules say.
Item Requires Specific Class or Alignment to Use: Even more restrictive than requiring a skill, this limitation cuts the price by 30%.If they are only ever putting it on themselves, They wouldn't get any additional benefit out of adding said restrictions. It may even become detrimental should their alignments ever change.
"Ah! It burns the skin!" :D
Even if they were to sell magical tattoos to others, they would only lose money by having said restrictions attached.
The game developers were already well aware of the possibility of abuse on this one when they wrote the game and have already built in limiters.
Hahaha, so by RAW it doesn't work anyway. RavingDork, you have made my day. I'm loving the idea of an alignment shift effect as well.
If they wanted to say that the tattoo did take up a slot then forgo the 2x increase. At that point it would be character story. You have tattoos all over your body but cant use magic items in those slots. That to me seems like a reasonable discount for a tattoo. You could also impose a small cost increase to balance out that they cant be taken from you. Also remember erase works on magical tattoos.
The problem is that they want to be able to have the tattoo and their slotted items, they just don't want to pay the cost for the tattoos. Thanks for the reminder about Erase, that's given me some ideas.
Don't allow discount by using the race/class/alignment restriction on created magic items, me and my group has been down this road and it isn't pretty, believe me when i say you that it will just end badly.
Huh. This is a new one on me. I explained the concept of RAW vs RAI, and received the following in response:
"Here's my problem with that. It is my solid opinion that there is no such thing as RAI. I believe that the rules are written the way they were meant to be. If something needs to be changed, an FAQ will address it. Otherwise it is my belief that "rules as intended" are exactly as they are written."
Well then just point out the rules I quoted that say that the formulas only provide a starting point and that the price should be modified by actual worth.
Then all you need to explain is that those restrictions don't change the worth as a magical tattoo is already limited to one person, and you can't limit it further then that.
The only way for an item that is already limited to one person in the world to be further restricted by the alignment or class rule would be if it's use was restricted to an alignment or class different then to the one the tattoo is on...
Which would be an odd choice.
Aye, I pointed that out to them in the last communication. Waiting to hear back from them now. I'm starting to get annoyed by their continued pushing of this now, so I'm kind of hoping the next email will be them backing off. If not, I'm getting dangerously close to demonstrating that the GM can rules lawyer too, usually to much more effect. I don't like doing it, because the game is supposed to be fun, for them and for me, but if that's what it takes then so be it.
Hm... magical items made from leather that was skinned off a magically tattooed person. There has to be a market for that kind of thing.
Funnily enough, that's exactly what my housemate said.
Hrm. this seems to be turning into a DM vs. the Player(s) situation. the DM always wins the war of escalation, sadly. If it comes down to it and they push it into 'payback' time, simply have every opponent all use tattoos also, the abrupt stop of gained loot may make them reconsider their stance.
"They were too good for them to pass up also." /evil smile.
Ideally though, your player will realize a cooperative balance with DM and Players both is the most enjoyable for all involved.
Hrm. this seems to be turning into a DM vs. the Player(s) situation. the DM always wins the war of escalation, sadly. If it comes down to it and they push it into 'payback' time, simply have every opponent all use tattoos also, the abrupt stop of gained loot may make them reconsider their stance.
"They were too good for them to pass up also." /evil smile.
Ideally though, your player will realize a cooperative balance with DM and Players both is the most enjoyable for all involved.
Yeah, I really would rather avoid the DM vs Players situation, but I'm starting to feel like that's where it's inevitably headed.
I have been considering tattooed opponents. The other option I quite liked was the idea of just throwing sorcerers casting Erase and Transfer Tattoo as offensive spells at them. "Well you see, you did have a Tattoo of Physical Perfect +6... but now HE has it."
I've had issues with this player before at times, they've tried to claim that they can use bonus spell slots of a Spell Level they can't cast yet in order to boost their lower level spells with metamagic, things like that. In the past they've always backed down when I've calmly explained my reasoning and so on, but this time that doesn't seem to be happening.
The major issue I have is that if I end up losing this player, I probably lose one of my others too since they're best friends. Leaving me with only two people. That said, the game has to be fun for me as well, and I have to feel like it's worth me putting in the effort to do prep work and so on for it. So, you know, it cuts both ways.
If they wanted to say that the tattoo did take up a slot then forgo the 2x increase.
That's how the magic tattoos work in the War of the Burning Sky adventure path. They still take up a slot; they're better in the sense that they can't be stolen or sundered, but they're worse in the sense that they can be sold or given to someone else.
I really hope this all gets handles out of game, instead of ending with an in-game retaliation. If things got that far, it would probably be better for your to say "Look, I'm just not going to allow this. If this is really, truly a serious issue for you, then it's best if we stop the game now." I don't see the players suddenly changing their opinions after their characters suffer the consequences in-game. That will likely result in the players leaving the table anyway, and then it would be even uglier.
|
|
First of all, shame on your players for trying to rules-lawyer you with a book you didn't/don't have. Personally I maintain that the only game content allowed is from books I own and like.Yeah, I'd honestly have expected a little more gratitude for the fact that I actually went out and bought a copy of this book once he said he was going to start using it, since I knew that he didn't have a copy either.
I think you're giving them more room than you should. You are the authority that determines which books are in force. Until you've read and/or bought a book, and decided that you think it fits in your game, it's just not available. Just because a book exists doesn't mean players have a right to it.
---
Anyway, your players sound unpleasant, to be honest. Not sure what to do about that.
On the subject of alignment-specific items: I'd only allow those if the item itself fits an alignment theme. It's not some sort of "magical rights management"; it's because evil people can't handle the pure holy goodness of this positive energy channeling device (for example). It's supposed to be an unfortunate side effect, not a convenient cost savings or security feature. If it's not a hindrance, it doesn't reduce the price. Same logic applies to class restrictions.
And that's why they're guidelines, not rules; magic item creation is more of an art than a science.
First of all, shame on your players for trying to rules-lawyer you with a book you didn't/don't have. Personally I maintain that the only game content allowed is from books I own and like.Yeah, I'd honestly have expected a little more gratitude for the fact that I actually went out and bought a copy of this book once he said he was going to start using it, since I knew that he didn't have a copy either.
I think you're giving them more room than you should. You are the authority that determines which books are in force. Until you've read and/or bought a book, and decided that you think it fits in your game, it's just not available. Just because a book exists doesn't mean players have a right to it.
---
Anyway, your players sound unpleasant, to be honest. Not sure what to do about that.
On the subject of alignment-specific items: I'd only allow those if the item itself fits an alignment theme. It's not some sort of "magical rights management"; it's because evil people can't handle the pure holy goodness of this positive energy channeling device (for example). It's supposed to be an unfortunate side effect, not a convenient cost savings or security feature. If it's not a hindrance, it doesn't reduce the price. Same logic applies to class restrictions.
And that's why they're guidelines, not rules; magic item creation is more of an art than a science.
I try to be pretty open with what I allow my players to use. I've got all of the core books, and everything that's been released in the Player Companions and Campaign Setting lines since the start of Skulls & Shackles. I definitely agree though, I'm going to start restricting what I allow so sitautions like this are avoided in the future.
As for the players, in general they're actually pretty good. I've had the occasional issues with some of them, but for the most part they're actually one of the better groups I've played with. The issues normally involve just this one player attempting to rules lawyer his way to more power, or deciding to just start killing NPCs despite whatever plans the rest of the party may have.
|
The third option, if they continue to argue, is that I will agree to run the game as per RAW. Exactly as RAW. I'm curious to see how they react when they realise that all the clever little tricks I've let them get away with only work because I think "Yeah, that's pretty cool, I'll run with it".
As a player, that's a consequence I would take seriously. Those "GM improv" moments lead to great gaming memories.
Yea no GM improvs would kill some of your fun...I LOVE the way my GM explains how alot of the more simple things "look like" in his mind when they happen
|
1st: Tattoos can be removed non-magically, erased, defaced with acid or fire, dispelled,
2nd: There is a level 1 spell that transfers tattoos. It's called Transfer Tattoo.
3rd: I missed the part about them being slotless for pricing purposes. So by RAW, price them as such. Tell her to check the rules and if she can't find it, provide a link or the page and book so she can see it herself. I'm an advocate of the feat and (as I checked data while writing this) was disappointed to find the 2x cost. So there is a mechanical issue involved in just how much power can be obtained via the feat and when that feat is worth taking.
I'm too lazy to double check on the issue with 30% reductions on not. It's like 2AM. This should really be a simple situation- almost as you described in the original post. It's a powerful feat with built in balance (2x cost) and the tattoos can be removed or sold, even. You never make money on magic items anyway since the guidelines state that you sell items for roughly half the market value. Crafting items are crafted at roughly half the market value. You break even.
In the case of a tattoo, the crafting cost ends up being the price of a regular item at full market value and the market value becomes twice the original (all due to the 2x multiplier). They can't make money. But they can increase party power, spend much of their wealth. The feats real advantage comes in later levels, as the early levels, it is more economical to craft actual wondrous items or whatever since your crafted items are counted at half market price (allowing you to benefit from the feat) so your wtb is better, assuming you don't fail the craft checks.
Once again guys, thanks for all your advice and opinions.
I really appreciate the help, you've given me some good ideas on how to handle the situation and any others that may arise.
Looks like this one's been resolved, each of the other players have stated that they have absolutely no issues with the calls I've made, and the sorceress backed down soon after.
|
The third option, if they continue to argue, is that I will agree to run the game as per RAW. Exactly as RAW. I'm curious to see how they react when they realise that all the clever little tricks I've let them get away with only work because I think "Yeah, that's pretty cool, I'll run with it".
I've run this game as fairly as I can, and tried to use my discretion when it comes to Rule 0 to keep things fun for the players and give them a fair chance. I've worked with the players to help them develop their character concepts, and bended things a bit for them to help them meet these ideas. So the fact that this is getting thrown back in my face the first time I make a call that doesn't suit this player is more than a little irritating.
This seems to happen quite a bit... GMs giving players break left and right, but when one break isn't given, they complain. Threatening them with going to RAW usually clears them up, especially when you make them realizes all the breaks they have been receiving. GMs create this problem, however, by not sticking to RAW in the first place- players and GM alike get used to breaks being given, thus the players get used to a certain style of play. it's like a football game where both teams get used to referees who let the players "play" by roughing up one another despite penalties which should be applied. When one penalty appears too egregious, the flag is thrown, and the players are like wtf, we have gotten away with this before but now this?
Players get used to these breaks and expect to keep getting them. The GM just looks bad by not allowing certain breaks; believe me, I know, it's happened to me many times. It's like if you loan someone money and they don't pay you back, you are the jerk for trying to get your money back.