Luthier's Rapier Pricing Error


Pathfinder Society

1 to 50 of 112 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

30 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite.

5,020 is Hellishly to low.
I Respect James Jacobs input on this. But I now have a few players that are arguing with me on this. Some even go as far to say "He's only the creative Director, Now if Mark or Mike say anything we'll listen" and that irks me. I've told them to respect the ruling but they Ignore me and continue to buy and use the weapon at the Incorrect Price. This is for PFS play btw. I HATE to ask, as I know what that implies, but is there any chance we can get a Second Opinion on this?

Shadow Lodge 4/5

Here's the current price though. It's probably been errataed.

Silver Crusade

Archives of Nethys is basing its price off the post i was referring too.
Here, That aside Nethys is NOT a go to source for whats proper or not. These Forums and Additional resources are, But this system is fundamentally flawed in the fact that most rulings on things like Luthier's Rapier are scattered across years of Blog post's and Message board responses by the Dev's. While they do an excellent Job of eventually FAQ'ing the Important stuff. things like this slip through the cracks and are ignored by those who will abuse the rules. I'm only asking for Further Clarity. Someone who will say NO, and people will listen because they aren't simply in the "art" department or something like that.

I DID tell them that he needs to be listened too and that the Price IS 25,020 because he said it was a typo but they wont listen because he's not an Editor or the like.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

Alright, I see the problem. I FAQ'd your post. Hope someone notices.


Just ban the items use till its fixed. It's an obvious typo with developer support for a more realistic price. Allow players to sell back the item at full price and buy a more level appropriate item. If player refuses, don't allow them to play at a table you control.

Edit: If and when the price is upheld, allow your players the ability to sell back their substituted weapon for full price and rebuy the rapier.

3/5 5/5

I wasn't aware this was a legal source, but apparently it is.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

Say no.

As a GM you are not forced or supposed to allow obvious typos. And a +3 weapon for 5020 is an obvious mistake.

Until the time that he sells back that item, that character is not PFS legal. Tell this to the players and tell it to all GMs in your area.

Just say no, don't argue with them. Don't get browbeaten into allowing it until further clarification.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
I wasn't aware this was a legal source, but apparently it is.

The old player companions have a number of very questionable things in them.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Bryce Kineman wrote:

Archives of Nethys is basing its price off the post i was referring too.

Here, That aside Nethys is NOT a go to source for whats proper or not. These Forums and Additional resources are, But this system is fundamentally flawed in the fact that most rulings on things like Luthier's Rapier are scattered across years of Blog post's and Message board responses by the Dev's. While they do an excellent Job of eventually FAQ'ing the Important stuff. things like this slip through the cracks and are ignored by those who will abuse the rules. I'm only asking for Further Clarity. Someone who will say NO, and people will listen because they aren't simply in the "art" department or something like that.

I DID tell them that he needs to be listened too and that the Price IS 25,020 because he said it was a typo but they wont listen because he's not an Editor or the like.

and again, archives of nethys shows why its not only as good but a better source than the printed material.

Dark Archive 5/5 5/55/5 Venture-Captain, Germany—Rhein Main South aka schattenstern

Quote:

As a GM you are not forced or supposed to allow obvious typos. And a +3 weapon for 5020 is an obvious mistake.

Until the time that he sells back that item, that character is not PFS legal. Tell this to the players and tell it to all GMs in your area.

I don't see any way we can disallow a player with this item to use it -> so i hope it will be adressed in the next additional ressources update.

5/5 5/55/55/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Alexander Lenz wrote:
Quote:

As a GM you are not forced or supposed to allow obvious typos. And a +3 weapon for 5020 is an obvious mistake.

Until the time that he sells back that item, that character is not PFS legal. Tell this to the players and tell it to all GMs in your area.

I don't see any way we can disallow a player with this item to use it -> so i hope it will be adressed in the next additional ressources update.

Counter argument: As the dm You are not allowed to ignore clarifications from the staff on board posts that you know about. Having seen the board post saying that its missing a two, you could legitimately say that you're obligated to make them use the higher price.

The Exchange

BigNorseWolf wrote:
You are not allowed to ignore clarifications from the staff on board posts that you know about.

No. You are not allowed to ignore rules clarifications by campaign leadership, including the campaign coordinator and campaign developer. That's all.

That's why it is important for there to be official errata etc.

Also note that as a GM you are not allowed to make rulings that contradict a Pathfinder Roleplaying Game source. Until there is an actual faq or errata do not turn someone away from a Public PFS game.

5/5 Venture-Captain, Massachusetts—Central & West aka Harley Quinn X

Also adding that James Jacobs himself said he's not a PFS rules official here.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Ragoz wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
You are not allowed to ignore clarifications from the staff on board posts that you know about.
No. You are not allowed to ignore rules clarifications by campaign leadership, including the campaign coordinator and campaign developer. That's all.

INCLUDING the leadership. Not limited to.

You may not simply ignore rules clarifications made
by the campaign leadership, including the campaign
coordinator and campaign developer, at http://paizo.
com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/
pathfinderSociety . GMs are not required to read every
post on the messageboards, but GMs familiar with rules
clarifications made by the campaign leadership (which
have not been superseded by the Guide to Pathfinder Society
Organized Play or FAQ) must abide by these clarifications
or rulings. If it is a significant clarification, it will be
updated in the FAQ, and later in the Guide to Pathfinder
Society Organized Play if necessary.

Quote:
Also note that as a GM you are not allowed to make rulings that contradict a Pathfinder Roleplaying Game source. Until there is an actual faq or errata do not turn someone away from a Public PFS game.

"You are not using an obvious typo, that has been called out as an obvious typo, to get a +3 weapon" is not turning anyone away from the game.

5/5 5/55/55/5

David Montgomery wrote:
Also adding that James Jacobs himself said he's not a PFS rules official here.

If there was any doubt that he was wrong or it was a matter of rules interpretation I'd agree with you. But this is a matter of product quality control, not a corner case rules interpretation.

Liberty's Edge 4/5 5/5 Venture-Captain, Virginia—Richmond aka Slothsy

I know that, in general, posts by James Jacobs are not binding. However, in this case, as the item is clearly mispriced and it is from a book that James Jacobs was directly responsible for, I enforce the corrected price in that posting.

I do think it needs to be removed from legality on the additional resources page, and it has been brought up several times in the past.

The Exchange

James isn't part of campaign leadership. Those in charge can take care of this as they see fit.

Again you would be contradicting an official paizo source. Do whatever you want at a private PFS game, but don't take action at a public event.

Grand Lodge 2/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Ragoz wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
You are not allowed to ignore clarifications from the staff on board posts that you know about.
No. You are not allowed to ignore rules clarifications by campaign leadership, including the campaign coordinator and campaign developer. That's all.

INCLUDING the leadership. Not limited to.

You may not simply ignore rules clarifications made
by the campaign leadership, including the campaign
coordinator and campaign developer, at http://paizo.
com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/
pathfinderSociety . GMs are not required to read every
post on the messageboards, but GMs familiar with rules
clarifications made by the campaign leadership (which
have not been superseded by the Guide to Pathfinder Society
Organized Play or FAQ) must abide by these clarifications
or rulings. If it is a significant clarification, it will be
updated in the FAQ, and later in the Guide to Pathfinder
Society Organized Play if necessary.

Quote:
Also note that as a GM you are not allowed to make rulings that contradict a Pathfinder Roleplaying Game source. Until there is an actual faq or errata do not turn someone away from a Public PFS game.
"You are not using an obvious typo, that has been called out as an obvious typo, to get a +3 weapon" is not turning anyone away from the game.

I don't see anything in the guide there that actually supports the point you're trying to make.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Ragoz wrote:
James isn't part of campaign leadership. Those in charge can take care of this as they see fit. Again you would be contradicting an official paizo source

He's one of the people that wrote the book. He's an official paizo source too on this matter. If i even needed to, I can take his word that the pricing on this item was a typo.

Quote:
Do whatever you want at a private PFS game, but don't take action at a public event.

No.

You're not an official rules source either.

The Exchange

That's why I'm reading from the guide.

Sovereign Court

Ragoz wrote:

James isn't part of campaign leadership. Those in charge can take care of this as they see fit.

Again you would be contradicting an official paizo source. Do whatever you want at a private PFS game, but don't take action at a public event.

So you say that, but I can't help but wonder whether allowing people to buy this at 5k simply because James Jacobs's recommendation for the correct price is not "a ruling from campaign leadership" is helpful or harmful to the campaign. Do you think that if people are allowed to buy this at 5k, there will be problems and frustration when campaign management inevitably corrects the price to 25k?

I'm not convinced blindly adhering to what is obviously a typo is really the best thing to do. Ambiguous and poorly written rules are one thing, but it is painfully apparent that this is a mistake and anyone denying it (don't see anybody mind you) is simply being obstinate.

As reasonable folks who (I'm assuming) don't like dealing with people who are upset after forced loss of equipment, it's probably easier in the long run if the 25k price is used.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Ragoz wrote:
That's why I'm reading from the guide.

And so am I. You have your interpretation that you're free to use, and I have mine that I'm free to use when I'm running my table. Happens all the time.

The Exchange

Whatever, you're clearly just disregarding what the Table Variation section says. It's not like I can stop you by just saying you are contradicting what an official paizo source says.

Quote:
So you say that, but I can't help but wonder whether allowing people to buy this at 5k simply because James Jacobs's recommendation for the correct price is not "a ruling from campaign leadership" is helpful or harmful to the campaign. Do you think that if people are allowed to buy this at 5k, there will be problems and frustration when campaign management inevitably corrects the price to 25k?

I don't have the answers to that but I'm sure considering there are new rules established for this we can let management handle it right?

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento aka FLite

By the way, what does the cost line for that item say? If it is 12.5K cost to craft, but 5K price to buy, it is even more clear that it is a typo. (If it is 2.5K to craft, it is possible that the cost was derived off the typoed price, but it does give them more grounds for the assertion that it is just ludicrously underpriced intentionally.)

The Exchange

2,510 to craft. It's less a typo and more a pricing error for the +3 with other abilities.


Hopefully we can summon John in here for a temp ban on the item.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ragoz wrote:

James isn't part of campaign leadership. Those in charge can take care of this as they see fit.

Again you would be contradicting an official paizo source. Do whatever you want at a private PFS game, but don't take action at a public event.

It is an obvious mistake. I haven't checked occult adventures recently, but if it has a spell with a typo (e.g. 14d6 per caster level, instead of 1d6 per caster level) I expect every GM who becomes aware of the situation to correct the issue.

While other miss priced items might be subject to argument, a +3 weapon at that price completely breaks the pricing guidelines.

I am curious, what players, who would want to get the item at the unfixed price, would do after they die to a typo.

"Sorry guys but the attack clearly states, that it deals 1d10+200, yeah it is pretty obvious, that it should be +20 but I really can't contradict the official source now can I ? ^^ "

GMs have brains and I expect everyone to use the resources at their disposal when it comes to situations like this one.

As far as I am concerned, the tactic/opinion from the players in the OP is poison to organized play.

The Exchange

Quote:
GMs have brains and I expect everyone to use the resources at their disposal when it comes to situations like this one.

The resource at your disposal is luckily right here according to the guide. If a particular issue causes a significant problem, please raise the questions or concerns right here in this forum and the campaign management staff will work to provide an answer.

Nobody here is stupid for questioning this, it's simply not your role or your authority to do something about this item in a public PFS game.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

1 person marked this as a favorite.

John regarding, the missing limit of skirmisher tricks for hunter pets. You could argue, that the description of the rapier is missing a "2" in a couple of places. http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rmwz?How-Are-GMs-Ruling-Hunters-Animal-Compani on#2

John Compton wrote:

Basically what Robert said above. If you have to make a call as a GM because an ability seems to be missing a key piece of information (e.g. range or uses per day), I recommend aiming for a fair middle ground that keeps the ability useful without making it super powerful/limitless.

Granted, this isn't a thread about how to rule on rules ambiguities in general; it's about a particular ambiguity. I recently overheard several of the design team talking shop about the Advanced Class Guide, so I'll try to inquire about this particular point and see if we can get some clarification.

I`ll try to find other similar posts later.


This is starting to be ridiculous. People are really arguing that an obvious typo has to allowed in PFS even though it has been corrected because it hasn't been corrected by an official enough source?

Sovereign Court

Jessex wrote:

This is starting to be ridiculous. People are really arguing that an obvious typo has to allowed in PFS even though it has been corrected because it hasn't been corrected by an official enough source?

To be fair, usually James Jacobs does not want to be taken as a rules source. But in this situation I think it's at least somewhat obvious that he's more correct than the book.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
Acedio wrote:
Jessex wrote:

This is starting to be ridiculous. People are really arguing that an obvious typo has to allowed in PFS even though it has been corrected because it hasn't been corrected by an official enough source?

To be fair, usually James Jacobs does not want to be taken as a rules source. But in this situation I think it's at least somewhat obvious that he's more correct than the book.

Any player that us not willing to take the statement of a Paizo employee that an item is a editing error with a correction is welcome to not sit at my table. Even if it's James Jacobs - there are some lines and books on which he is authoritative. ISWG harmonic spell us another where he has issued an authoritative ruling because it is an early content change, not an interaction interpretation, which are what he prefers to stay away from.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

To be fair, there have been conflicting clarifications amongst members of Paizo Staff.

Also, imagine if something we believe costs only 500gp, is listed in a source to cost 5000gp.

Do you think one should be able to purchase it at 500gp, without official authorization?

There are rules for price changes in PFS.

So, for now, to maintain current rules, I would simply warn players, they are likely to lose said item, once it is updated. They may not have the money, and/or Fame, to purchase it then. Also, it could become banned.

Liberty's Edge 4/5 5/5 Venture-Captain, Virginia—Richmond aka Slothsy

blackbloodtroll wrote:

To be fair, there have been conflicting clarifications amongst members of Paizo Staff.

Also, imagine if something we believe costs only 500gp, is listed in a source to cost 5000gp.

Do you think one should be able to purchase it at 500gp, without official authorization?

There are rules for price changes in PFS.

So, for now, to maintain current rules, I would simply warn players, they are likely to lose said item, once it is updated. They may not have the money, and/or Fame, to purchase it then. Also, it could become banned.

What concerns me about this item is that it overwhelm tables. I've seen a mesmerist use it for the +4 sacred bonus to CHA only, that stacked with her headband, so that she had a 26 CHA at level 4. This item is clearly a problem, and upholding clarifications made by the lead for the line (as it's from an adventure path player's companion) is not unreasonable.

This item really needs to be removed from legality.

Silver Crusade

Rigby Bendele wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

To be fair, there have been conflicting clarifications amongst members of Paizo Staff.

Also, imagine if something we believe costs only 500gp, is listed in a source to cost 5000gp.

Do you think one should be able to purchase it at 500gp, without official authorization?

There are rules for price changes in PFS.

So, for now, to maintain current rules, I would simply warn players, they are likely to lose said item, once it is updated. They may not have the money, and/or Fame, to purchase it then. Also, it could become banned.

What concerns me about this item is that it overwhelm tables. I've seen a mesmerist use it for the +4 sacred bonus to CHA only, that stacked with her headband, so that she had a 26 CHA at level 4. This item is clearly a problem, and upholding clarifications made by the lead for the line (as it's from an adventure path player's companion) is not unreasonable.

This item really needs to be removed from legality.

making this item illegal seems a bit extreme. Though that depends on the ultimate price of the item. If they maintain this incorrect price then yes ban it. But if its Updated to be 21-25kgp then leave it. That's a hefty Price to pay, but worth it if you can use it properly.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

Bryce Kineman wrote:
Rigby Bendele wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

To be fair, there have been conflicting clarifications amongst members of Paizo Staff.

Also, imagine if something we believe costs only 500gp, is listed in a source to cost 5000gp.

Do you think one should be able to purchase it at 500gp, without official authorization?

There are rules for price changes in PFS.

So, for now, to maintain current rules, I would simply warn players, they are likely to lose said item, once it is updated. They may not have the money, and/or Fame, to purchase it then. Also, it could become banned.

What concerns me about this item is that it overwhelm tables. I've seen a mesmerist use it for the +4 sacred bonus to CHA only, that stacked with her headband, so that she had a 26 CHA at level 4. This item is clearly a problem, and upholding clarifications made by the lead for the line (as it's from an adventure path player's companion) is not unreasonable.

This item really needs to be removed from legality.

making this item illegal seems a bit extreme. Though that depends on the ultimate price of the item. If they maintain this incorrect price then yes ban it. But if its Updated to be 21-25kgp then leave it. That's a hefty Price to pay, but worth it if you can use it properly.

Increase the price or ban it, just donÄt leave it as is.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Request that anyone using the rapier show you the source. They have to have the book to use it, and it is an old book.

As a temporary and kind of funny fix.

Grand Lodge 2/5

Add Wait wrote:

Request that anyone using the rapier show you the source. They have to have the book to use it, and it is an old book.

As a temporary and kind of funny fix.

I was going to suggest this, too. Make them show you their legal source to prove they can use it. If they do, then just warn them that they probably won't be able to keep using it at its current price.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

How do we get to 25,020 GP as the price for this thing?

A rapier costs 20 GP, a masterwork rapier 320 GP. Make it a +1 holy rapier, and it seems to be effectively a +3 magic weapon, which according to Table: Weapons under Magic Items/Weapons (Core Rulebook) on the prd is another 18,000 GP. So 18,320. I'm guessing the other 6700 has something to do with that ruby in the hilt, but I'm not sure how to calculate it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Don't forget the once per day for 10 min +4 to charisma which as a sacred bonus stacks with everything.

It's also much easier to assume that a number was left off of the price than that it is some completely new set of numbers. So 25,020 makes the most sense.

Grand Lodge

Having them show you a pdf of the book isn't going to be that hard. I can go spend 7 bucks right now and then give that to my bard. It's quite tempting at either price, one far more so than the other...

Silver Crusade 5/5

I'm guessing that extra almost 7k has to do with the +4 sacred bonus to CHA, which is a bargain.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

The charisma bonus is why I mentioned the ruby, since that's where it originates.

I still don't know how to compute the cost of it, though. Rulebook cite, anyone?

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

Ed Reppert wrote:

The charisma bonus is why I mentioned the ruby, since that's where it originates.

I still don't know how to compute the cost of it, though. Rulebook cite, anyone?

Quite a number of items don't follow the formula, and there is a good reason for that (ring of true strike anyone ? ), in this case someone might have just set a price that sounded appropriate.

Depending on your build, that +4 sacred bonus to CHA might be a steal .

Sovereign Court 3/5

I get that it's horrendously underpriced and (in my opinion) should be disallowed in PFS until the price is rectified, but I don't get the hype over the CHA bonus. It's 1/day for 10 minutes and hence only a temporary bonus. As such it will raise spell/channel DCs and skill bonuses, but it won't give bonus spells, Channel uses/day, etc.

5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Tampere aka Rei

That +2 to a spell's DC can push an already ludicrous save to near impossible. As a (not very good) example, my level 8 nagaji oracle could drop a DC 25 debilitating portent with that. Couple that with how a lot of PFS scenarios can have most or all of the combats of a scenario within the same 10 minutes...

Dark Archive

My kitsune sorceress could drop a DC 30 Confusion with that. She couldn't even use the rapier part, but the rest would be worth it even at full price to take saves from improbable to impossible...

Shadow Lodge

Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Talon Stormwarden wrote:
I get that it's horrendously underpriced and (in my opinion) should be disallowed in PFS until the price is rectified, but I don't get the hype over the CHA bonus. It's 1/day for 10 minutes and hence only a temporary bonus. As such it will raise spell/channel DCs and skill bonuses, but it won't give bonus spells, Channel uses/day, etc.

Which makes it equivalent to the Aura class ability that a Mystery Cultist gets at 2nd level (so character level 9) -- except Aura is only good for 1/rd per (MC) level.

25 to 50x the duration of a high level class ability is pretty darn good.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
Ed Reppert wrote:

The charisma bonus is why I mentioned the ruby, since that's where it originates.

I still don't know how to compute the cost of it, though. Rulebook cite, anyone?

Quite a number of items don't follow the formula, and there is a good reason for that (ring of true strike anyone ? ), in this case someone might have just set a price that sounded appropriate.

Depending on your build, that +4 sacred bonus to CHA might be a steal .

We have a set of rules on how to construct magic items, and we're not going to follow them? Why not? What is this "good reason"?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A Ring of True Striking, set to be permanently active, would cost 2000gp. It would add a permanent +20 to all attacks. That's...pretty good for 2000gp.

1 to 50 of 112 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Luthier's Rapier Pricing Error All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.