Yeah. no. you are not doing x 6 damage on a lance crit.
Some other things use real world multiplication/division, difficult terrain and blindness stacking for example
So regarding the new Adventurer's Armory 2 weapon and armor modifications rules, which say:
These modifications are added to mundane weapons after creation at the listed cost, but modifying magical weapons increases the cost of modifications by 50%.
These are added to the price of the weapon at the same time as the masterwork cost?
So a Large Masterwork Cold Iron Razor-Sharp Greatsword should cost 1500 GP (500 for the weapon and 1000 for Razor-Sharp)? And a +1 Large Masterworld Cold Iron Razor-Sharp Greatsword should cost 4000 gold (increasing the razor-sharp price by 50% and adding the 2000 for +1).
Do I have this right?
So for the modifications, I think if you make something magic after it's on there's no increase. It's only for adding the modification after it's already magic that gets the increase.
So if you have a Large Masterwork Cold Iron Razor-Sharp Greatsword should cost 1500 GP making it +1 costs 4000 for a total of 5500.
If it was a +1 Cold Iron Greatsword it would be 4500 and adding razor-sharp would be 1500 for total of 6000gp
I would ignore enchant costs entirely when modifying weapons via the AA2 rules. Mundane modifications really should have no interaction with magical modifications, and vice versa (unless referring to cold iron).
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 masterwork50 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?
I asked the question about multiplication in another thread, which is probably why it got included.
*nods*
It says "modifying magical weapons", not "enchanting modified weapons".
So the best way to handle weapon/armor modifications is to consider that the weapon/armor already exists, and the character is taking it to be modified, and the price to have the modification done is what's listed in AA2 or 1.5x that if the item is already magical.
That's easy enough to do.
*nods*
It says "modifying magical weapons", not "enchanting modified weapons".
So the best way to handle weapon/armor modifications is to consider that the weapon/armor already exists, and the character is taking it to be modified, and the price to have the modification done is what's listed in AA2 or 1.5x that if the item is already magical.
That's easy enough to do.
Agreed.
So regarding the new Adventurer's Armory 2 weapon and armor modifications rules, which say:
These modifications are added to mundane weapons after creation at the listed cost, but modifying magical weapons increases the cost of modifications by 50%.These are added to the price of the weapon at the same time as the masterwork cost?
So a Large Masterwork Cold Iron Razor-Sharp Greatsword should cost 1500 GP (500 for the weapon and 1000 for Razor-Sharp)? And a +1 Large Masterworld Cold Iron Razor-Sharp Greatsword should cost 4000 gold (increasing the razor-sharp price by 50% and adding the 2000 for +1).
Do I have this right?
I bolded the relevant part of your quote. Modifications are added after creation, so the creation cost multipliers cannot have any bearing on them. They're added after everything the FAQ tells you to do (including after reducing the cost to 1/3 if crafting the base item).
The 50% increase for modifying a magical weapon applies only to the base modification cost, and does not take the weapon cost into effect at all. Therefore a modification which costs 1000 gp adds 1000 gp to a mundane weapon (regardless of size) and 1500 gp to a magical weapon (regardless of size).
----
For the multiplication thing, the general rule for die rolls is that you don't stack the multipliers. If a roll isn't involved, math it as normal. This was mentioned in the other thread already.
There is always the option to get stuff for your animal that isn't made out of the most expensive special material out there.
I mean, Nimble reduces the ACP by 1 and costs only 1000 GP, Comfort reduces the ACP by 1 and costs only 5000 GP.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your companion is large as an animal companion.
He could be a Mammoth Rider, which jumps that to huge.
Then of course you could just manufacture them faster with tools of manufacture. 2k a day. 23 days. 3 weeks.
It's unlikely any crafter is sitting on a set of tools of manufacture. However:
It makes sense for manufacturing guilds to get together and buy a set of tools of manufacture and allow members to rent them out for a project. The cost is more than most individuals would spend but for an organization, it's not bad. A guild is also a good place to find skilled helpers that can aid another too. ;)
There is always the option to get stuff for your animal that isn't made out of the most expensive special material out there.
I mean, Nimble reduces the ACP by 1 and costs only 1000 GP, Comfort reduces the ACP by 1 and costs only 5000 GP.
Well if we're talking magic, fitting solves the issue easily for 2000gp...
Nimble is not yet pfs legal (if it ever will be) and if you're dropping the armor by 1 you can probably find something better.
Yes. He could be one specific thing. In which case your second point is moot because it's the first thing I'd buy.
Why would he buy the tools when he could either put fitting on tiny armor or have someone cast fabricate. If you can find the 132000 gp for the huge armor, you can find someone that can cast the spell and has enough skill. Why spend the extra for the tools [12000gp] when spellcasting [450gp] will do instead AND save 6 weeks of work...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Goodbye anyone ever playing anything with an animal companion ever again. What you want us to go into the dungeon and fight the dragon ? heck no I am going to go kill that elephant with mithral full plate. Also Since the MIthral Full plate isn't in a shop for my super duper weird animal companion it will have to be crafted. I sure hope I can find the crafter with 20 ranks in craft armor, skill focus in craft armor, traits focusing on craft armor, and a maxxed out intelligence stat. Assuming this person works non-stop 7 days a week for there entire life I might , maybe if they don't blow a couple of rolls get to have my great great grandchildren of my elephant to wear some armor.100,00 gp to silver = 1,000,000 silver. max ranks 20, skill focus +6, Int of 20 or +5. A total of 31 in craft armor. The dc to craft armor is 10 + AC bonus so a dc 19. Taking 10 ( if the DM allows it ) will give a 41 check. 41 times 19 =779. 1,000,000 divided by 779 = 1284 weeks or just under 25 years. This assumes the DM allows you to take 10 . If he doesn't then you better hope you do not fumble . Good luck adventuring while you wait on this.
Or cast Fabricate?
Or play in a game world where elephants somehow manage to get through the day without wearing mithral full plate armor?
When ever I see a pet in plate from now on I'm casting dispel magic.
I wonder how much damage having armour made of super durable metal does when it goes from huge to tiny around ones chest and privates?
If only that was a rule... And if you do that, then you can do that with any adventurers equipment [as non-weapon/armor items resize]. SO, if you want to houserule like this, you might end up with fingers chopped off, feet crushed, heads shrunk, waists squeezed, necks compressed, ect... Just like that armor, we KNOW that higher level characters/npc's are going to have the big 6 so why aren't you already using this tactic? ;)
This is a rabbit hole that's best to not go down: it requires noting what the origional size EVERY piece of equipment EVERY character/npc in the ENTIRE world... Or you could play like you always have without adding a houserule that actively makes the game worse...
If the intent is to make the game reflect reality by multiplying material costs, then masterwork cost ought to be lumped in there as well.
This ruling also seems to the door to a lot of minmaxing, rules arguments, and yet more searching in obscure rulebooks, so I'm not ...really looking forward to dealing with that.
Things like this make me wish for a 2.0. ...Make some flat costs, etc. Make special materials a little more uniform, and so on. Address it from the bottom up, instead. Just make it cleaner.
Oh no. I wouldn't end up with anything of the sort. I'm playing a hunter now and am craft g his armour myself. A dispel won't do much at all. To me either. I'd rather not get into table variance of having a head lopped off.
So you see it's a rabbit hole that should totally be explored. 3rd level instant kills spells work for me on people that thought they could save a few gold. If it's going to become that common damn straight that's a rabbit hole I'll go down. Bet I only need to go down it once or twice too.
But you 100000% missed the point. OTHER equipment resizes already. Are you making your belt? Your headband? Your cloak? Your rings? Because if you aren't, the SAME thing can happen to you that happens to that animal companion in that armor... If you inforce item resizing, it's super disingenuous to ONLY have it affect something you don't like and ignore all the other times it happens.
Now, there is also the prospects of foes getting you to waste actions/spells dispelling illusions. If your first action is to try to instant kill houserule them, a simple illusion of one [either of illusionary armor or 100% illusionary] makes you waste it. How many times does that happen before you stop? Or do you fill up your 3rd level spells with ONLY that spell in hopes of making those 'dirty loophole users' pay for the crime playing smart and using actual rules to play the game...?
To be clear, your house rule would require EVERY item you own to list it's exact size to you [your size but too big, larger size, smaller size, your size but smaller, custom fit], figuring out the effects of wearing the wrong size [running in boots too big, cloaks too small, pants on the ground, ect]. So you're punishing EVERYONE with a new house rule JUST in case some dirty 'powergamer' uses an existing rule to pay less for his armor...
Good for you I guess? You'll really show them? Thankfully I'll not have to use those house-rules.
I wonder how much damage having armour made of super durable metal does when it goes from huge to tiny around ones chest and privates?
Considering teleportation accidents only do 1d6 damage per 10 feet, probably not much.
Considering teleportation accidents only do 1d6 damage per 10 feet, probably not much.
I wonder how much damage having armour made of super durable metal does when it goes from huge to tiny around ones chest and privates?
Considering resizing equipment had been in the game since day one and no rules were put in for 'damaging resizing' in all this time, I'd say at best maybe a circumstance penalty on some skills? Maybe? I've never heard of anti-magic fields and such murdering people as their equipment changes size...
The best thing to look at is enlarge person and rooms too small. "If insufficient room is available for the desired growth, the creature attains the maximum possible size and may make a Strength check (using its increased Strength) to burst any enclosures in the process. If it fails, it is constrained without harm by the materials enclosing it–the spell cannot be used to crush a creature by increasing its size."
The key part is "the spell cannot be used to crush a creature by increasing its size." Insta-killing with size changing spells is not intended by the game. If you can't kill a creature by making them huge in a 5' room, is seems really silly to try to crush someone by shrinking their armor.
Why would he buy the tools when he could either put fitting on tiny armor or have someone cast fabricate. If you can find the 132000 gp for the huge armor, you can find someone that can cast the spell and has enough skill. Why spend the extra for the tools [12000gp] when spellcasting [450gp] will do instead AND save 6 weeks of work...Yes. He could be one specific thing. In which case your second point is moot because it's the first thing I'd buy.
When ever I see a pet in plate from now on I'm casting dispel magic.
I wonder how much damage having armour made of super durable metal does when it goes from huge to tiny around ones chest and privates?
Um, like zero? That's not how armor works. The straps holding the armor together would break long before they injured the wearer.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Um, like zero? That's not how armor works. The straps holding the armor together would break long before they injured the wearer.
+1
But to be fair, someone intentionally using tiny fitting for a medium or larger creature should take the dispel every combat. That is pretty obvious to me not expected behavior.
Um, like zero? That's not how armor works. The straps holding the armor together would break long before they injured the wearer.+1
But to be fair, someone intentionally using tiny fitting for a medium or larger creature should take the dispel every combat. That is pretty obvious to me not expected behavior.
Yep, who would EVER expect someone to use the enchant as intended... I mean what dirty loophole finding exploiter would really think that an enchant that fits a set of armor to your size would fit armor to your size...
People and the rules intentionally handwave the size of wondrous magic items and for 2000gp, you get to do the same with armor. I don't get the push to 'punish' those using the rules as written. Before this FAQ, did you have a vendetta against this enchant? Or is it just now that it could save someone some money?
Right now it seems more like a tool to allow the DM more freedom in equipping npc's without tying up thousands of gp in armor than a pc loophole... People seem to have the preconception that it's 'bad' from the start:
when you look at the big picture, fitting does more to improve the game than it harms it. With it, the dm can have larger npc's with special material armor without having to worry the pc's might gain the equivalent of the GNP of a small nation when they get it's armor. Giving the DM a bigger toolbox is good IMO. Fitting is a universal gp saver: it's not just a PC advantage and there are more npc's than npc's to take advantage of it.
If you use the FAQ as 'expected', any encounter that has special material on a creature bigger than medium severely cuts into any budget it has for equipment and will by necessity have to be stripped of most other items it has. I don't find that effectively preventing larger creatures from access to special material armor a good thing and I'd have to wonder what the reason is for it if it's 'expected'.
I don't think it's necessarily a bad tradeoff to have to choose between "armor that's lower AC, but you won't lose your AC bonus to dispel magic" versus "armor with higher AC that's vulnerable to dispel magic" versus "armor with higher AC that won't fall off due to dispel magic, but is much more expensive."
Good game design forces players to make choices, now as a result of this it might be the case that companions who top out at medium are a lot better options than they were a month ago.
|
If you use the FAQ as 'expected', any encounter that has special material on a creature bigger than medium severely cuts into any budget it has for equipment and will by necessity have to be stripped of most other items it has. I don't find that effectively preventing larger creatures from access to special material armor a good thing and I'd have to wonder what the reason is for it if it's 'expected'.
Which makes me wonder why the Paizo thought this FAQ was the right answer in the first place. Did they decide that large NPCs and bestiary monsters should never use special materials, and therefore the only characters using this are PC characters (generally animal companions) who are abusing the rules?