|
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
A recent FAQ has stated that the cost of mithral weapons is 500 gold per pound the non-mithral version weighs. Since there were no weapons or other weight based mithral items in the Core Rulebook, I had based my cost calculations on the mithral equipment costs in Ultimate Equipment (which are all 500 gold per pound the mithral item weighs). Now I have mithral weapons that I paid the wrong price for. How should I correct this, and can I change my mind and retroactively make some of them adamantine since that is now cheaper than mithral for my heavier weapons?
|
How should I correct this,Pay the difference, and if you can't afford the item at the new price remove it from your character.
and can I change my mind and retroactively make some of them adamantine since that is now cheaper than mithral for my heavier weapons?
No.
Edit: In situations where an item is banned, they usually allow a full refund, but this isn't a ban. It isn't even a rule change. The pricing in UE was a clear contradiction of the core rules.
|
|
Remember that Mithral weapons are always masterwork, this will explain why mithral weapon costs are based off the weight before they are mithral.
Some metal weapons way as little as 1 lb, at 500gp/lb that means a Mithral Dagger costs 502 gp, compared to a masterwork silver dagger costing 325 gp. Both the daggers bypass silver damage reduction, and the silver dagger always does 1 damage less. If Mithral weapons costs were based on their post-mithral weight, a Mithral Dagger would cost 252 gold, much less then the masterwork silver dagger, less then a normal masterwork dagger even, yet the mithral dagger is obviously the better choice, so if a Mithral Dagger costed 252 gold, who would ever buy a non-mithral dagger unless they wanted cold iron or adamantine?
Obviously my example only works for light weapons, since weapons such as an earth breaker weighing in at 14 lbs cost a lot more to be made of mithral (7040 gp for a mithral earthbreaker, ouch).
I'm curious now what weapon you got that was made out of mithral, but I'm inclined to say that it was never a legal purchase to begin with, especially as you likely lacked the gold at the time you made the purchase to pay for the full price. And if you didn't have the gold to purchase the item in the first place, you never purchased it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would say sell at the price you paid it or pay the difference, although I'm sure someone would be willing to point out why I'm incorrect. :)
Though this is probably wrong. I agree with it.
I don't think it's fair to a player to make them pay additional gold because a rule changed (or was clarified)
I'd say either grandfather it in or let them sell it back at full price. I know that I might pay 1000 for a mithril longsword, but I certainly wouldn't pay 2000. Losing 1000 gold due to lack of rules clarity isn't exactly awesome from a player perspective.
|
|
the only grey area was whether that was 500 gp per pound of the original item, or per pound of the mithral item, but both books are identical in that respect.
Maybe I'm missing something, but the mithril items listed in the CRB are priced based on the original weight, and in UE are priced based on the new weight. That was the contradiction I was referring to. I don't think a free switch to adamantine is the best way to correct the mistake. The player should pay the difference between what he paid and the correct cost, and only then should be allowed to sell the item if he wants something else.
|
|
Fine, whatever. You're all right, and I'm a horrible person for wanting people to pay full price for their stuff. If the FAQ had made mithril items cheaper people would be asking for refunds, and they'd get them based on the Amulet of Mighty Fists change. But making a player pay more for an item? Blasphemy.
I think Mystic Lemur that the problem with your approach is that you are telling the player to pay x gold to make up for the difference, then telling them that they can sell the item to get back basically the exact same amount of gold.
The benefits of having a mithral weapon are fairly minor:
Works like silver for weapon damage bypass (no -1 damage penalty)
Weights half as much as a full metal weapon (if the weapon were all metal).
I do not recall many scenarios where a silver damage reduction played a role. Nor do most really track their weight.
So, I believe that those that take mithral weapons do so more for role-play reason and less for a mechanical benefit. I am not seeing any harm in allowing a player to either get a full refund or pay the difference.
|
|
the only grey area was whether that was 500 gp per pound of the original item, or per pound of the mithral item, but both books are identical in that respect.Maybe I'm missing something, but the mithril items listed in the CRB are priced based on the original weight, and in UE are priced based on the new weight. That was the contradiction I was referring to. I don't think a free switch to adamantine is the best way to correct the mistake. The player should pay the difference between what he paid and the correct cost, and only then should be allowed to sell the item if he wants something else.
Actually the description of mithral in UE does not specify which weight to use, there are simply specific items which are made of mithral in UE that seem to use the cost for the reduced weight so picking the new weight is purely an assumption because of how these specific items are priced.
|
If the item was LISTED as mithral waffle iron 100 gold that should be the end of it.. you bought the item at the listed price. The folks that bought reasonably priced staves before the erratta that doubled all the prices got to keep those at discount.
If you calculated the cost of the item yourself, when the math was unclear you should have to pay up.
|
|
Fine, whatever. You're all right, and I'm a horrible person for wanting people to pay full price for their stuff. If the FAQ had made mithril items cheaper people would be asking for refunds, and they'd get them based on the Amulet of Mighty Fists change. But making a player pay more for an item? Blasphemy.
If you bought a book from you favorite game store and then a month later the owner says that the price was messed up and you owe him 5 extra bucks....how would you feel?
Would it make a difference if it was even 1 dollar more? I know it would annoy me regardless of price.
Making people spend extra game money for an item they already bought is pretty much the same thing. It's fictional money, but it's annoying nonetheless. Games shouldn't be annoying.
|
|
The shop owner isn't playing a game where we're all assumed to be on a level playing field. A better example would be paying the wrong amount for a property in Monopoly. As a fellow player, I'd insist that the player who made the mistake correct the mistake as soon as it was discovered.
When a mistake is this easy to correct, it should be corrected.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The shop owner isn't playing a game where we're all assumed to be on a level playing field. A better example would be paying the wrong amount for a property in Monopoly. As a fellow player, I'd insist that the player who made the mistake correct the mistake as soon as it was discovered.
When a mistake is this easy to correct, it should be corrected.
If I pay a listed price for something and then someone tells me I owe them double the price I paid because the listed price was a mistake, I would be annoyed.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
When a mistake is this easy to correct, it should be corrected.
I believe it should be corrected, and the two easiest ways to correct it without any 3rd party having feathers ruffled is to either:
1) Sell it back for half what was paid2) Pay the difference to ultimately pay the full correct price.
Yes is agree. Penalize the player for the player for using the rules in the new book.
The player made an honest mistake, by looking at "other items" in the UE. But we don't know if they considered this and used the lower weight because Masterwork Pots and Skillets don't "include" a 300 gp Masterwork cost.
Depending on the item purchased, it should have been obvious the use of the lower weight was wrong. I mean if the price was less than 300 gp yet "the masterwork cost is included in the prices given below." That should have been a hint the calculation was wrong.
If I pay a listed price
So it is a good thing there was no listed price for the weapon, and it was calculated by the buyer. Yay!
|
Unless told otherwise by campaign leadership keep your mithral waffle iron. If you want to purchase a second buy at new price. How many people actually have mithral other than armor?
Mithril armor, yes. Mithril weapons? Not usually.
To be honest, except for the very light weapons, the ones that weigh 1 pound to begin with, Silversheen, from the Qadira book, IIRC, is much the better choice.
Weapon is treated as silver, no damage penalty, no weight change, but it is immune to rusting effects. All for a static additional charge, which includes the masterwork costs, no matter how muchthe weapon weighs.
|
|
If I pay a listed price for something and then someone tells me I owe them double the price I paid because the listed price was a mistake, I would be annoyed.
If a character paid cost a magical item, because that is what they thought it cost to get the item, and then that character got audited, would they not be expected to pay up the remaining amount?
This is no different then that, the listed price was not paid. Remember, the FAQ in this case is not a rules change, it is a clarification.
Sure, it's something that could easily be missed during an audit, but if someone wrote "Purchased Mithral Dagger, 252 GP" I'd know something was wrong. If they wrote "Purchased Mithral Earthbreaker 3540 gp" I would probably check that too, because that's a pretty big chunk of change, and if I noticed they were supposed to spend 7040 gp, I would bring it up, because they would have made an illegal purchase, one they may very well have not had the gold to actually purchase at the time.
|
|
This is no different then that, the listed price was not paid. Remember, the FAQ in this case is not a rules change, it is a clarification.
If i calculate the cost of a mithral scimitar (my Kitsune Ninja has encumbrance issues to the point where this may happen) as 500gp X the weight of the mithral ... when its now been clarified that its 500 gp X the weight of the iron, thats a clarification and I should pay the difference.
If I buy a mithral cauldron (which is an actual item) for the listed 1,251 gp, which will be erratad in the future to reflect the clarified pricing thats a change. The precedent from the staves is you get to keep them. Crazy eddie must have been having a half off sale.
|
|
This is no different then that, the listed price was not paid. Remember, the FAQ in this case is not a rules change, it is a clarification.If i calculate the cost of a mithral scimitar (my Kitsune Ninja has encumbrance issues to the point where this may happen) as 500gp X the weight of the mithral ... when its now been clarified that its 500 gp X the weight of the iron, thats a clarification and I should pay the difference.
If I buy a mithral cauldron (which is an actual item) for the listed 1,251 gp, which will be erratad in the future to reflect the clarified pricing thats a change. The precedent from the staves is you get to keep them. Crazy eddie must have been having a half off sale.
And the OP bought a weapon.
|
A recent FAQ has stated that the cost of mithral weapons is 500 gold per pound the non-mithral version weighs. Since there were no weapons or other weight based mithral items in the Core Rulebook, I had based my cost calculations on the mithral equipment costs in Ultimate Equipment (which are all 500 gold per pound the mithral item weighs). Now I have mithral weapons that I paid the wrong price for. How should I correct this, and can I change my mind and retroactively make some of them adamantine since that is now cheaper than mithral for my heavier weapons?
Note I have no stars by my name, but if I was auditing...
I would say that you have to pay the right price for the weapon, period. In other words, pay up the difference.
If you do not have enough gold to do that and have already used it in play (in previous scenarios), I would make you sell it for half of what you already paid and then have you deduct half of the amount that you still owed. That would "balance the books" so to speak.
If you do not have enough gold and have not used it in play, I would let you have a full refund. I would also enforce a ruling from Paizo that says you get a "do over" and can return the item for what you paid for it. But shy of that, I would in no way let you just return it for full refund and take the money to buy something else.
Sorry, but the rules are the rules.
Andy
Edited for poor grammar.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If a developer (or freelancer) could make the mistake, then it is not fair to expect casual players could not make the same mistake. Let them sell it back at full price (that they paid) or pay the difference if they want to keep it.
|
|
Sorry, but the rules are the rules.Except 1) thats not a rule and 2) the rule was in limbo to the point that most of the people making items for print thought it worked out to 500gp/pound of mithral item.
The rule is that you pay full price for items, cannot buy them in broken condition or without a full load of charges. (Paraphrased from the organized play document)
Here a player makes a mistake interpreting a fairly nebulous rule. Fair enough. What I'm saying is that without guidance from the designers, I have to rule on this the way I would rule on any other "underpayment".
Now, if Paizo wants to further clarify how to handle this "underpayment" situation, I would certainly use that. Right now, all that has been clarified is that weapons use the normal weight for caluculating the price for their mithral analogs.
I witnessed a situation where a guy had mithral armor. It was one of the heavy armors so it should have included a 9000 gp add on to the base price. He only paid 4000 gp for the add on and explained that he had been working on his idea with medium armors and just screwed up. He had not used it in a scenario already that day so what do you do? The GM who signed off said that since he hadn't played with it yet he could rectify his sheet one of three ways: pay the extra 5000 gp, switch to a medium armor or take it off the sheet and return the full amount he paid to his sheet. In this case, the player chose option number three.
Now if he had used it the previous scenario, how would you judge it and still comply with the rule that you have to pay full price? If the item would have cost 2500 gp and the player paid 1250 gp,he could either pay the balance or what? Well, if he had paid full price from the start and needed to sell the item for whatever reason, he would sell it back at half price and in effect, deduct 1250 gp from what he started with. That's what I think has to be done to enforce characters paying full price.
Andy
In my opinion, the PFS gurus should make an official stand on how to rectify this specific situation.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
If you do not have enough gold to do that and have already used it in play (in previous scenarios), I would make you sell it for half of what you already paid and then have you deduct half of the amount that you still owed. That would "balance the books" so to speak.
That, IMO, would be excessively harsh.
I could, perhaps, see selling back the item for half of what was paid. But then also requiring the player to cough up for half of the price difference (thus, in effect, requiring him to give up the item for no recompense) goes too far. After all, a GM supposedly signed off on the purchase price.
And what if the player had decided, the scenario before, he no longer wanted the item, and had already sold it (for half of the price he had paid). Would you still insist that he had to "balance the books" by adjusting both the purchase and sale prices to the correct value?
|
|
If you do not have enough gold to do that and have already used it in play (in previous scenarios), I would make you sell it for half of what you already paid and then have you deduct half of the amount that you still owed. That would "balance the books" so to speak.That, IMO, would be excessively harsh.
I could, perhaps, see selling back the item for half of what was paid. But then also requiring the player to cough up for half of the price difference (thus, in effect, requiring him to give up the item for no recompense) goes too far. After all, a GM supposedly signed off on the purchase price.
And what if the player had decided, the scenario before, he no longer wanted the item, and had already sold it (for half of the price he had paid). Would you still insist that he had to "balance the books" by adjusting both the purchase and sale prices to the correct value?
That's a good question, John. Which is why in a later post I asked for more clarity from the designers.
But without that, I have a one word answer: yes.
Would you not do that if they paid 50 gp for a potion of Bull's Strength (instead of 300 gp)and had used it? Or 1350 gp for a +1 greatsword instead of 2350 gp? People make mistakes all the time and asking them to rectify them when you find them is part of the auditing process, isn't it?
Andy
|
Has anyone considered that until we hear from Mike or John on this, that we assume its grandfathered in?I don't mean to be a pest, but why would we assume that? (no sarcasm intended). The rule did not change, it was clarifed though. Is that the normal approach?
Andy
I'm new, but considering the wide range of opinions on how this should be handled, leaving things alone and waiting for an official ruling seems like it would be the best course. No point going through work to correct this when we might find out the "correction" was wrong.
|
|
Has anyone considered that until we hear from Mike or John on this, that we assume its grandfathered in?I don't mean to be a pest, but why would we assume that? (no sarcasm intended). The rule did not change, it was clarifed though. Is that the normal approach?
Andy
I haven't looked at the book for this specifically so I'm only speaking of what I've been told.
But Ultimate Equipment apparently has mithril items priced at the mithril weight, not the pre mithril weight. So that makes it an easy assumption to make on other mithril items that aren't specifically listed in the book.
So before we start making players make changes, let's wait till campaign leadership chimes in. Because if its determined that UE was wrong and needs errata, then wed be penalizing players instead of just asking them to make the correction based on a clarification.
Furthermore we are likely talking a small percentage of players and at most maybe two items per player. Probably we are only talking about a max of 3500gp, which in the grand scheme of things isn't going to hurt the game.
|
|
For what it's worth, I agree with you completely. I guess that makes you a terrible person, too. ;)
Who called you a terrible person? You've been assuming we have something against you this whole thread, but I didn't see anything to provoke that.
I think that based on the PFS rules, you're probably correct. I also believe that there was enough of a gray area on the cost of mithril weapons that it would be reasonable for the player to choose not to purchase the item in the first place.
I look at it like this. A player looks at their longsword and says "hmm, 1000gp (or 700 because it comes MW) is a reasonable cost to overcome silver DR. They decide to pay that.
Later it gets clarified that they should have paid 2000 gold. I'm in complete agreement that they can't use the item (unless a ruling on grandfathering happens), but I don't think they should be forced to pay double if that's not a choice they would have made.
In all honesty, the PFS outlook isn't to screw the players, that doesn't help anyone. We want to be fair to everyone, so the cost must be corrected.
As I see it there are 2 ways to make it fair to everyone.
1) If you wouldn't have made that choice, unmake it IE sell back at full value.
2) If you want to use your mithril weapon, pay the difference.
mechanically speaking, for 2000gp (the cost of mithril longsword) you can almost get a +1 silver mace, which I would argue is generally a better deal.
|
|
Has anyone considered that until we hear from Mike or John on this, that we assume its grandfathered in?I don't mean to be a pest, but why would we assume that? (no sarcasm intended). The rule did not change, it was clarifed though. Is that the normal approach?
Andy
I haven't looked at the book for this specifically so I'm only speaking of what I've been told.
But Ultimate Equipment apparently has mithril items priced at the mithril weight, not the pre mithril weight. So that makes it an easy assumption to make on other mithril items that aren't specifically listed in the book.
So before we start making players make changes, let's wait till campaign leadership chimes in. Because if its determined that UE was wrong and needs errata, then wed be penalizing players instead of just asking them to make the correction based on a clarification.
Furthermore we are likely talking a small percentage of players and at most maybe two items per player. Probably we are only talking about a max of 3500gp, which in the grand scheme of things isn't going to hurt the game.
I agree that waiting for campaign leadership to weigh in is a good idea.
How long does that usually take?
Andy
|
|
I think that based on the PFS rules, you're probably correct. I also believe that there was enough of a gray area on the cost of mithril weapons that it would be reasonable for the player to choose not to purchase the item in the first place.
I look at it like this. A player looks at their longsword and says "hmm, 1000gp (or 700 because it comes MW) is a reasonable cost to overcome silver DR. They decide to pay that.
Later it gets clarified that they should have paid 2000 gold. I'm in complete agreement that they can't use the item (unless a ruling on grandfathering happens), but I don't think they should be forced to pay double if that's not a choice they would have made.
In all honesty, the PFS outlook isn't to screw the players, that doesn't help anyone. We want to be fair to everyone, so the cost must be corrected.
As I see it there are 2 ways to make it fair to everyone.
1) If you wouldn't have made that choice, unmake it IE sell back at full value.
2) If you want to use your mithril weapon, pay the difference.mechanically speaking, for 2000gp (the cost of mithril longsword) you can almost get a +1 silver mace, which I would argue is generally a better deal.
I thought the question from the OP was How can I fix this (under paying for mithral weapons) and can I retroactively take the money back and buy something else?
Your options are acceptable to me if they come from Paizo. But I read this pretty clearly that you pay full price and sell things for half price.
Andy
|
|
I don't expect the officials to chime in on this because officially endorsing the most reasonable thing to do here sets a bad precedence, and no one would want to justify why it might be ok to take a mulligan on this one but not some other similar situation.
Personally I don't see a lot of difference between not paying enough for an item and not meeting the fame for the item or prereqs for a feat to begin with. You simply were not supposed to have it. It doesn't sit in stasis tying up resources until you do qualify for it.
I am guessing you probably didn't even see any mechanical advantage to this mithral on your blade? If so and you have the legalistic curse, buy a few vials of alchemical silver or whatever they are called.
|
|
For what it's worth, I agree with you completely. I guess that makes you a terrible person, too. ;)Who called you a terrible person? You've been assuming we have something against you this whole thread, but I didn't see anything to provoke that.
I called myself a terrible (actually it was horrible) person, upthread. I was responding to the general idea that asking a player to fix a mistake was some sort of punishment. I don't actually think I'm being picked on, or whatever. :)
The views expressed by Mystic Lemur don't necessarily represent the views held by Mystic Lemur or his aliases.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Selling them back at full price does the least damage to the campaign. The illegal items are gone, no one feels personally attacked out of character, and in character they can complain about aggressive merchants sending out messengers forcing full refunds.
This isn't a normal campaign, where the difference can be worked out with the character. (Although it has inspired a mini-adventure where the party is caught up with by a merchant's messenger offering a full refund or to collect the difference. If that party is helpful, they gain a merchant NPC ally and a good reputation. If they ignore it, they gain a bad reputation in the weapon merchant community, which slowly overcharges them enough that they make up the money. If they kill the messenger, the guild of weapon merchants suddenly becomes a recurrent opponent, with agents spread throughout the gameworld!)
No, in this situation it is the player who bears the loss if there is one, and it is more than just money for their character to spend. The loss could include trust in the fairness of the leadership, morale, enthusiasm about their character, etc. That isn't worth doing just because someone thought the examples from Ultimate Equipment were doing it correctly!
|
|
To answer some of the questions, I have three mithral weapons amongst my characters. Two are rapiers and not a huge price hit, but the third is a elven curve blade and at 7 pounds and 3500 gold to make it mithral, I would have never made that decision nor could I have at the time I purchased it.
I understand the developers are listing it as a clarification, but since it contradicts the only pricing examples I have seen in any book for mithral items, I don't understand how I was expected to have magically known that the authors of that book were wrong.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Selling them back at full price does the least damage to the campaign. The illegal items are gone, no one feels personally attacked out of character, and in character they can complain about aggressive merchants sending out messengers forcing full refunds.
...
No, in this situation it is the player who bears the loss if there is one, and it is more than just money for their character to spend. The loss could include trust in the fairness of the leadership, morale, enthusiasm about their character, etc. That isn't worth doing just because someone thought the examples from Ultimate Equipment were doing it correctly!
I 100% agree with this. If it was an honest mistake, then it should be corrected. But the player should not be "punished" by forcing them to pay extra for a purchase that was legal according to a published source at the time.
The player should get the choice of selling back for a full refund, or paying the difference. That way all the books are balanced, and the player can decide whether the new price is worth it or not.
|
|
To answer some of the questions, I have three mithral weapons amongst my characters. Two are rapiers and not a huge price hit, but the third is a elven curve blade and at 7 pounds and 3500 gold to make it mithral, I would have never made that decision nor could I have at the time I purchased it.
I understand the developers are listing it as a clarification, but since it contradicts the only pricing examples I have seen in any book for mithral items, I don't understand how I was expected to have magically known that the authors of that book were wrong.
I understand your dilemma and despite how I've answered above, I am sympathetic.
But your original post asks how to remedy the situation and did you have the option to take a full refund in order to buy a different item.
And with the guidelines that are in place, I would have to rule that you must purchase the weapon(s) at full price. The only thing that I could allow is if you have not played one or more of the characters since you bought the mithral items, you could sell back the items on those characters for full price. But, if you used it in play, you would have to make that right by paying up to full price.
If you do not have the gold, I would suggest that you remove the item from your sheet. Because, by coincidence, you paid half price for the weapon to start with, your character sheet would now reflect what it would look like if you had purchased at full price and then sold it for half.
To some degree, this happened to my Monk character. I jumped on an amulet of natural armor when it came on a chronicle sheet. When I later learned that the Amulet of Mighty Fists was a necessity for Monks, I could not sell my amulet of natural armor for full price to get a ring of protection. It was my mistake and it cost me 1000 gp.
Now, I would allow you to play the character and hold onto the item in question until ruled on by Paizo, but not allow the item to be used unless you paid in full. In other words, I would not make you correct the error only to have to recorrect it later.
As I see it, I don't think I have any other options as a GM.
Andy
|
|
Andy, the player did not buy the item and then decide she did not want it. If that were the mistake made, I'm sure everyone here would agree with your position.
The player realized that she misunderstood a pricing guideline, in the same way that many other people have misunderstood the very same rule (which is why a FAQ was issued---the F stands for "frequently").
Is it worth alienating players on something as silly as this? She realized her mistake, and is making a good faith effort to correct it. If she is allowed to sell back the item(s) at full price, she hasn't gained anything. She simply has the money that she would have had all along.
|
|
Except, of course, the use of the item for however long it was on the character sheet. Is there no value attached to that? I believe so, and I believe that value to be half of the full cost of the item. If the character wants to keep it, they should pay the difference. If they no longer want an item they made use of, they should remove it from their sheet. That way the books balance, and they have the same amount of gold as any other character who bought and then sold the same item for the correct price.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok. Here a player accidentally took a spell he wasn't allowed to take. He used it for many game sessions he played. When the mistake was discovered, he changed it out to a legal spell. How much gold should he pay for using an illegal 1st-level spell for six game sessions?