|
That's if you're going off the assumption that Masterworking and special materials are factored in after the cost of sizing. I (and the FAQ) don't go by that.That's for crafting. The FAQ has it for *all* modifiers.
So, by the CRB, a masterwork Large scimitar is 330gp (15gp, x2 for large, +300 for masterwork). By the FAQ, it's 630gp. (15gp, +300 for masterwork, x2 for large).
CRB disagrees: masterwork cold iron scimitar
Weapon Master's Handbook disagrees: Crusader's Longsword
Ultimate Equipment disagrees: Demonsorrow Curve Blade
The Moonscar disagrees : Iron LashSeems like a CLEAR pattern of masterwork being added after...
Can't look up Iron Lash but I'm guessing it's Cold Iron?
As I've been saying Cold Iron is the outlier, either going off the part Skizzerz pointed out or that the DT forgot that CI is priced by doubling the cost, and it works fine going Base + Special Material + Masterwork X Size
Cool...
Then we have adamantine weapons...
The Midnight Isles: Blancher large adamantine weapon NOT priced for large adamantine.
Classic Treasures: Jorngarl's Harm no x2 adamantine cost for large.There aren't many large adamantine weapons but every one figures out the price different than the FAQ. Secondly, Iron Lord's Transforming Slivers exist too... for the low, low cost of 1000gp, you change the size up or down 1 size. All it takes then is 1000gp and the enlarge person spell... Who's going to pay an extra 3000gp when a 1000gp item does the trick?
Those two adamantine weapons would be in error even before the FAQ since the Adamantine material already has the Masterwork price factored in to them, so they shouldn't have that 300g in their price tag to begin with.
Didn't even know about the Transforming Slivers before this, intersting work around.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All this tells me is that fitting is extremely undercosted in light of this new FAQ.
+1 It may have been designed with the understanding the multiplier was before the material cost was added.
Personally I feel that if the PDT didn't want "some loophole" to break their rule they should have made a non-exploitable rule, like saying only the base price gets modified. That way there's no real reason to try and find a way around an oppressive rule.
Finding ways around oppressive rules are what is discouraged, as it makes those rules intent void.
----
I guess it makes sense for masterwork to be multiplied if mithral is (since mithral includes masterwork).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I feel that if the PDT didn't want "some loophole" to break their rule they should have made a non-exploitable rule, like saying only the base price gets modified. That way there's no real reason to try and find a way around an oppressive rule.Finding ways around oppressive rules are what is discouraged, as it makes those rules intent void.
The point should be don't make oppressive rules. If the rules make sense and seem fair players will follow them and not complain, nor try as much to break them. Make a rule that seems unfair, unfounded, or overly punishing and people will find away around that because they believe it shouldn't exist.
So make good rules and you won't need to discourage people about finding ways around the rule since they won't need to find ways around it.
|
Masterwork is automatically included in Adamantine armor and weapons, you can't have un-masterworked versions of Adamantine stuff. So that an Adamantine weapon has an additional 300g in it's price tag means the pricing and the creator pricing it is already in error.
To be honest, they aren't good examples for either position. Jorngarl's Harm doesn't have an adamantine blade, so doesn't have a special material. The extra cost is some combination of its special ability and masterwork pricing. The same occurse for the cost of Blancher's special ability, its either 28296 or 25296 depending on how the creator decided to calculate adamantine.
Masterwork is automatically included in Adamantine armor and weapons, you can't have un-masterworked versions of Adamantine stuff. So that an Adamantine weapon has an additional 300g in it's price tag means the pricing and the creator pricing it is already in error.
You TOTALLY missed the point. Those large weapons didn't modify the cost for adamantine: this contradicts the 'add everything before multiplying cost' as large weapons are a x2 multiplier. To further explain, by the FAQ large adamantine weapons should add 6000gp however the only listed examples of large adamantine weapons only add the base cost for adamantine of 3000gp.
Serum: yep, I misread Jorngarl's Harm: it has an adamantine haft... not sure how that works.
Blancher is clear though: remove the doubled part [the magic] and you're left with 3,312 and the FAQ would mean the adamantine alone would be 6000 for large.
PS: Rysky, unique magic is meaningless in this debate as you can easily remove the magic part by looking at the craft price vs the sell price and removing the part that's doubled: the remaining part is the cost of the base item without magic.
It doesn't matter what part you remove since the pricing is wrong to begin with. An Adamatine weapon should not have 300g in it's price tag, since it does it means the pricing is in error. It's bad data, you can't point to it as an example since it's wrong.
LOL it doesn't matter if the 300gp is there or not... All I need to show that it adds LESS than 6000gp, which the FAQ says is the default base price for large adamantine weapons. I assume they mistakenly added mastercraft to it: that and not multiplying the adamantine cost are separate issues. it's clear that it doesn't follow the FAQ pricing.
|
|
It doesn't matter what part you remove since the pricing is wrong to begin with. An Adamatine weapon should not have 300g in it's price tag, since it does it means the pricing is in error. It's bad data, you can't point to it as an example since it's wrong.LOL it doesn't matter if the 300gp is there or not... All I need to show that it adds LESS than 6000gp, which the FAQ says is the default base price for large adamantine weapons. I assume they mistakenly added mastercraft to it: that and not multiplying the adamantine cost are separate issues. it's clear that it doesn't follow the FAQ pricing.
It doesn't even follow normal pricing. It does matter if the price is incorrect because, well, the pricing is incorrect, you can't point to different parts of the pricing and say they back you up when the pricing is flawed to begin with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't even follow normal pricing. It does matter if the price is incorrect because, well, the pricing is incorrect, you can't point to different parts of the pricing and say they back you up when the pricing is flawed to begin with.It doesn't matter what part you remove since the pricing is wrong to begin with. An Adamatine weapon should not have 300g in it's price tag, since it does it means the pricing is in error. It's bad data, you can't point to it as an example since it's wrong.LOL it doesn't matter if the 300gp is there or not... All I need to show that it adds LESS than 6000gp, which the FAQ says is the default base price for large adamantine weapons. I assume they mistakenly added mastercraft to it: that and not multiplying the adamantine cost are separate issues. it's clear that it doesn't follow the FAQ pricing.
forgetting that adamantine is already masterwork is different than forgetting that adamantine doubles when large.
So either they forgot/broke 2 rules, or they forgot/broke 1 and the other wasn't a rule at the time.
It doesn't even follow normal pricing. It does matter if the price is incorrect because, well, the pricing is incorrect, you can't point to different parts of the pricing and say they back you up when the pricing is flawed to begin with.It doesn't matter what part you remove since the pricing is wrong to begin with. An Adamatine weapon should not have 300g in it's price tag, since it does it means the pricing is in error. It's bad data, you can't point to it as an example since it's wrong.LOL it doesn't matter if the 300gp is there or not... All I need to show that it adds LESS than 6000gp, which the FAQ says is the default base price for large adamantine weapons. I assume they mistakenly added mastercraft to it: that and not multiplying the adamantine cost are separate issues. it's clear that it doesn't follow the FAQ pricing.
I can CLEARLY and with 100% certainty say that it doesn't follow the new FAQ pricing and with reasonable certainty I can say mastercrafting was added in error. As such, it works fine as an example of an item NOT following the new FAQ.
Or are you arguing that this item, in some way, is following the new FAQ? Does removing the mastercrafting error somehow make it fit perfectly in line with the FAQ?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't even follow normal pricing. It does matter if the price is incorrect because, well, the pricing is incorrect, you can't point to different parts of the pricing and say they back you up when the pricing is flawed to begin with.It doesn't matter what part you remove since the pricing is wrong to begin with. An Adamatine weapon should not have 300g in it's price tag, since it does it means the pricing is in error. It's bad data, you can't point to it as an example since it's wrong.LOL it doesn't matter if the 300gp is there or not... All I need to show that it adds LESS than 6000gp, which the FAQ says is the default base price for large adamantine weapons. I assume they mistakenly added mastercraft to it: that and not multiplying the adamantine cost are separate issues. it's clear that it doesn't follow the FAQ pricing.I can CLEARLY and with 100% certainty say that it doesn't follow the new FAQ pricing and with reasonable certainty I can say mastercrafting was added in error. As such, it works fine as an example of an item NOT following the new FAQ.
Or are you arguing that this item, in some way, is following the new FAQ? Does removing the mastercrafting error somehow make it fit perfectly in line with the FAQ?
His point is that the author clearly wasn't following/didn't know basic pricing rules in the first place, as such it can't be considered an authoritative source for the existence of a different pricing rule than this FAQ, it's like potions of self only spells, it's not proof of some change or alteration of rules but an error of the author. So it's existence doesn't provide support that this rule wasn't always a Pathfinder rule.
|
|
His point is that the author clearly wasn't following/didn't know basic pricing rules in the first place, as such it can't be considered an authoritative source for the existence of a different pricing rule than this FAQ, it's like potions of self only spells, it's not proof of some change or alteration of rules but an error of the author. So it's existence doesn't provide support that this rule wasn't always a Pathfinder rule.It doesn't even follow normal pricing. It does matter if the price is incorrect because, well, the pricing is incorrect, you can't point to different parts of the pricing and say they back you up when the pricing is flawed to begin with.It doesn't matter what part you remove since the pricing is wrong to begin with. An Adamatine weapon should not have 300g in it's price tag, since it does it means the pricing is in error. It's bad data, you can't point to it as an example since it's wrong.LOL it doesn't matter if the 300gp is there or not... All I need to show that it adds LESS than 6000gp, which the FAQ says is the default base price for large adamantine weapons. I assume they mistakenly added mastercraft to it: that and not multiplying the adamantine cost are separate issues. it's clear that it doesn't follow the FAQ pricing.I can CLEARLY and with 100% certainty say that it doesn't follow the new FAQ pricing and with reasonable certainty I can say mastercrafting was added in error. As such, it works fine as an example of an item NOT following the new FAQ.
Or are you arguing that this item, in some way, is following the new FAQ? Does removing the mastercrafting error somehow make it fit perfectly in line with the FAQ?
^ this, thank you.
His point is that the author clearly wasn't following/didn't know basic pricing rules in the first place, as such it can't be considered an authoritative source for the existence of a different pricing rule than this FAQ, it's like potions of self only spells, it's not proof of some change or alteration of rules but an error of the author. So it's existence doesn't provide support that this rule wasn't always a Pathfinder rule.
I can show that the only example of a large adamantine weapon doesn't follow the new FAQ. I'm fine with adding it to all the cold iron examples that don't follow the new FAQ. If someone wants to ignore it, fine, but I disagree with cold iron being an 'outlier' as he said as we have NO examples of a large adamantine weapon using the new FAQ but we do have an example of one not using it. ;)
His point is that the author clearly wasn't following/didn't know basic pricing rules in the first place, as such it can't be considered an authoritative source for the existence of a different pricing rule than this FAQ, it's like potions of self only spells, it's not proof of some change or alteration of rules but an error of the author. So it's existence doesn't provide support that this rule wasn't always a Pathfinder rule.I can show that the only example of a large adamantine weapon doesn't follow the new FAQ. I'm fine with adding it to all the cold iron examples that don't follow the new FAQ. If someone wants to ignore it, fine, but I disagree with cold iron being an 'outlier' as he said as we have NO examples of a large adamantine weapon using the new FAQ but we do have an example of one not using it. ;)
Yup, I say it's not STRONG evidence, but it is something that correlates as evidence and provides a garnish to the argument.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As someone with a math degree, may I state that D&D (and Pathfinder) makes me grit my teeth sometimes with how they do the 'maths'. I am absolutely convinced that the dev team should get someone with a math degree to analyze the rules, and point out obvious things to them.
Not a criticism of the dev team per se, just saying that maths is hard (who knew math was so hard?) :) and that it would seriously help them clean up and keep the rules clean if they had someone with an actual math degree help keep their numbers coherent.
Back in the day, RPG developers didn't have layout artists and editors in house, you had people who loved gaming writing and laying out the books. This resulted in some truly horrific layout (WhiteWolf's Indexes that don't index or don't list things comes to mind as an especially egregious example). In the last 15 years or so, that's made a 180, and D&D and Pathfinder are some of the most well indexed, well layed out, RPG products that have ever been on the market.
Actually getting in someone with a statistics degree (or a gaming math degree if you can hire one away from the computer game industry without breaking your HR budget) would go a long way toward helping smooth out the maths in the system (and maybe end up with getting a crafting system/economy in the game that makes sense).
You want to say cold iron is an "outlier", but whatever name you give it, those are still contradictions.
thats less contradiction and more the book not following their own example.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I second the recommendation on having a mathematics background.
As I pointed out earlier in this thread, typical order of operations requires multiplication first, followed by addition.
Absent rules up to this point, that's how the vast majority of players were handling it.
This FAQ goes counter to math.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
thats less contradiction and more the book not following their own example.
You want to say cold iron is an "outlier", but whatever name you give it, those are still contradictions.
Anything in the CRB that doesn't follow the FAQ is a contradiction. it can be resolved by errata, by updating the FAQ, or by going back to basics and fixing the underlying problem with special materials.
This is only an issue because there's a mishmash of rules regarding special materials. Some are by the pound, some are flat additions. Some are a mix and mash (flat for this, pounds for that). The way to fix this is to go back and get something where actual weight (like real world) affects the cost.
A 150 lb metal object made of gold costs way more than the same 150lb object made of lead, and both proportionally cost more than the cost of a 100lb metal object made of each metal respectively. Honestly, the proper way to handle it would be to redo the special materials, but that's probably unlikely as an errata. But, they could do it as a 'optional rule segment' in an expansion book. Something like the following :
Special materials list their bonuses and advantages depending on whether they are used to make weapons, armor, or items. Some special materials have no special advantages for some categories. Each special material lists a base cost adder that represents the overhead and man hours/skill needed to work with that material. Additionally, each special material lists a cost per pound of that material. Costs are calculated on the actual pounds used. For items that require a mix of materials (wooden hafted metal weapons for example), calculate the cost of the most expensive special material being used (for example, a mithral poleaxe would be calculated as if it were solid mithral), and simply note any other special properties (for example, a mithral poleaxe could have a darkwood shaft, giving it's shaft more defense than normal wood, but would otherwise be treated as Mithral).
Mithral : 1000 gp + 500gp per pound
Adamantine : 2000 gp + 750gp per pound
Darkwood : 100gp + 10gp per pound
etc
It would require re-calculating existing tiems slightly, but would at least negate the arguments over when to double/triple/etc. A large breastplate would made of mithral would cost based on the fact it's more metal, not that it's large. The current method is so abstract that you get weird interactions.
Wouldn't deal with the 'tiny + fitting', but that's easier to handle by rewriting fitting to be 'can be made smaller only' instead of any size. So it's size or smaller, meaning no tiny + fitting being worn by giants.
Never thought about it till now what happens if i'm medium and wearing tiny fitting full-plate and I enter an anti-magic field.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Imagine a tube of tooth paste...
...imagine a 5yo with an iron grip...
...imagine the tube has no top on it...
...imagine the 5yo squeezing the tube...
...now imagine your armor is the tube, and you are the toothpaste...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Never thought about it till now what happens if i'm medium and wearing tiny fitting full-plate and I enter an anti-magic field.
My assumption would be nothing. The magic isn't present to resize it.
Never thought about it till now what happens if i'm medium and wearing tiny fitting full-plate and I enter an anti-magic field.My assumption would be nothing. The magic isn't present to resize it.
I would guess that would vary by GM.
GM 1: The magic resizes it, then it's that size until it resizes again. (AKA: You are not bone and gut paste GM)
GM 2: The magic is keeping it at your size, without the magic, it reverts to it's actual size. (AKA: You are bone and hamburger paste GM)
Whelp that'll be the next FAQ question then, unless they make an amendment to Fitting then i foresee this coming up before too long.
Before trying to determine if this FAQ (FAQ-rrata?) is good to implement in my house games, I want to know if there is somebody see an advantage in using the FAQ. I mean, does it make the game better? more fun? easier to run? does it take away math work from the DM and the players?
If you already had a set way of pricing materials and it worked for you then shouldn't be an issue. If your players are all standard races using appropriate size weapons and no animal companions not real issue. It's only going to be when you have smaller or larger things getting armors and such that it will come up.
Well, animal big wolves and tigers are quite common.
Well, animal big wolves and tigers are quite common.
If they wear special material armor the price is going up.
Never thought about it till now what happens if i'm medium and wearing tiny fitting full-plate and I enter an anti-magic field.My assumption would be nothing. The magic isn't present to resize it.
The magic is a permanent, not instantaneous, effect.
You get SQUEEEZED. Pathfinder physics and teleporter accidents suggest that you take way less damage from such things than the laws of our own universe dictate.
|
|
As someone with a math degree, may I state that D&D (and Pathfinder) makes me grit my teeth sometimes with how they do the 'maths'. I am absolutely convinced that the dev team should get someone with a math degree to analyze the rules, and point out obvious things to them.
For whatever it's worth, Mark doesn't exactly have a math degree, but I don't think he's that far away from one, either. (Depends on his particular research interests, I suppose. I haven't looked at his CV.)
Engineers use Math the same way Accountants use math. Neither of them use math in a way that makes a game 'fun'. If you don't believe me, try the old GURPS Vehicle Rules (3.0 version especially, which was built by a team with an engineer). :) Mark is a very smart man, and way underpaid, but he's unlikely to have the type of Math I'm talking about (number theory, statistics and probability, for example) aren't going to be in an engineering course. It wouldn't hurt to have someone with some actual economics courses under their belt (full blown minor, not the obligatory 'buy low sell high, now pay me $200 for the textbook and I'll buy it back for $20 later' courses).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, we did have to take all of those sorts of classes (except Economics) for the Master's in CS at MIT. Linda actually straight up has a SB in Math.
Actually, we did have to take all of those sorts of classes (except Economics) for the Master's in CS at MIT. Linda actually straight up has a SB in Math.
Wonderful! Then may I suggest you get the people who have the maths together and have them math the sh*t out of Pathfinder and fix some of these types of things? :)
Well we did get to do that for Starfinder to an extent and I'm pretty excited about those, but some of those Starfinder changes would be too substantial for Pathfinder.
Engineers use Math the same way Accountants use math. Neither of them use math in a way that makes a game 'fun'.Do I sense a little interdisciplinary rivalry?
(And to paraphrase Reiner Knizia, you don't use math in Pathfinder. You use arithmetic!)
LOL, probably a bit. I have an MST in Mathematics (I work as a programmer for what it's worth), and my wife as a BS in Accounting and an BS in MIS (she works as a second tier tech support). It's kind of a running joke that Accountants ask you what you want the numbers to be, Statisticians ask you want you need the numbers to say, and Mathmaticians tell you what the numbers are.
Well we did get to do that for Starfinder to an extent and I'm pretty excited about those, but some of those Starfinder changes would be too substantial for Pathfinder.
SOOOOO glad to hear that. I was dreading D&D/PF pricing/crafting/economics in spaaaaccceeeee. :)
Would it be something that could be done as a rules module, similar to the alternate rules modules in Ultimate Campaign.
|
Well we did get to do that for Starfinder to an extent and I'm pretty excited about those, but some of those Starfinder changes would be too substantial for Pathfinder.SOOOOO glad to hear that. I was dreading D&D/PF pricing/crafting/economics in spaaaaccceeeee. :)
Would it be something that could be done as a rules module, similar to the alternate rules modules in Ultimate Campaign.
From what I've seen of Starfinder's system in previews, it drastically changes the math of the game. You'd pretty much need a full rework of most options to do it to Pathfinder.
So I doubt we'll see a first party conversion.
I was more referring to an overhaul of pricing/crafting as a module.
|
|
Well we did get to do that for Starfinder to an extent and I'm pretty excited about those, but some of those Starfinder changes would be too substantial for Pathfinder.
You just got me way more excited about Starfinder. I hope you get a commission :-)
Can you possibly give any kind of precis as to how the math caused you to change the rules?
Well we did get to do that for Starfinder to an extent and I'm pretty excited about those, but some of those Starfinder changes would be too substantial for Pathfinder.You just got me way more excited about Starfinder. I hope you get a commission :-)
Can you possibly give any kind of precis as to how the math caused you to change the rules?
Yes, but we should do it in another thread somewhere.
Official Rules Response
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
The FAQ has received an official adjustment, both in this thread and on the FAQ page. The answer now reads
First add up the total cost of the base item, including any special material. Then multiply by any multiplier for the size and unusual shape from Table 6-8. After that, add any additional cost for masterwork, if that isn't already part of the special material. Finally, apply any multiplier for discounts such as the 1/3 cost multiplier for crafting the item. For example, a chain shirt costs 100 gp and a mithral chain shirt costs 1,100 gp after the +1,000 gp cost for mithral. If you were applying the 1/3 cost multiplier for crafting the item using the Craft skill, the cost multiplier from Table 6-8 based on size and body type, or both, you would apply those multipliers to the full 1,100 gp cost for the mithral chain shirt. This means a mithral chain shirt built for a rune giant costs 8,800 gp and a mithral chain shirt built for the tarrasque costs 35,200 gp. On the other hand, a Large masterwork cold iron greatsword costs 500 gp (50 gp for a greatsword, doubled for cold iron, doubled again for a Large weapon, then adding masterwork last because cold iron isn't always masterwork).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like the clarification, but one part of it confuses me.
a Large masterwork cold iron greatsword costs 500 gp (50 gp for a greatsword, doubled for cold iron, doubled again for a Large weapon, then adding masterwork last because cold iron isn't always masterwork
50 gp doubled twice should be 150 gp, plus masterwork should be 450 gp.
That is the general rule for multiplication.
Are we being told that general rule doesn't apply to item costs?