RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
Barding price is listed in the CRB. The price for durable ammunition other than arrows is not listed in any sourcebook. That is the difference between the two discussions.
The fact that people disagree with barding prices because they don't make a lot of sense, and I agree that they don't make sense as written,
needs to wait for a Dev to clarify or change the rules as written.
That discussion doesn't change the fact that there are no rules whatsoever for the price of durable ammo other than arrows in any Pathfinder sourcebook.
|
Nefreet, I met you at Gen Con. You deem a nice and reasonable sort. But right now, you are making that evaluation seem ludicrous. You are making this personal. You are saying I'm not following rules.
Well, I am following the rules. And others agree with me interpretation. Just because you interpret it differently does not instantly make you right and me a hideous and draconion ass. What you are doing right now is destroying any good will we created by meeting in person.
That's unfortunate.
But I'm done with the personal attacks. If you want to discuss tge erits if the argument without the over arrogant assumption that your interpretation us the only correct one, then I'll engage. But not gonna continue to engage when you are questioning my ethics and trying to tear me down to discredit my argument.
And for the record, the only, "not at my table" right now, is your attitude towards me. I'll listen to any reasonable argument at the table, and make the fairest ruling I can based on the circumstances and my understanding of the rules.
To expect me to bend to your bullying tactics makes you the ass, not me.
|
Barding price is listed in the CRB. The price for durable ammunition other than arrows is not listed in any sourcebook. That is the difference between the two discussions.
The fact that people disagree with barding prices because they don't make a lot of sense, and I agree that they don't make sense as written,
needs to wait for a Dev to clarify or change the rules as written.That discussion doesn't change the fact that there are no rules whatsoever for the price of durable ammo other than arrows in any Pathfinder sourcebook.
You re using a weird argument to try to make a legal item illegal over a few copper
Durable arrows has a listed price one gp. The rues say you can buy other ammo and gives the rules for doing so
|
But you're making no sense.
You're interjecting fallacy and personal opinion into a discussion and treating them as rules.
I choose to believe the game works. Arbitrarily banning things, and believing *your* personal opinion is correct, when it negatively impacts the game and player-GM interactions, is not a helpful position. It's not "the fairest ruling" you can make. It's extreme and damaging.
Ask yourself how this position you're taking is in any way positive. Ask yourself how it furthers fun. Ask yourself how this very debate makes your extreme position look.
I have no problem with you, but your argument is not valid, and I would do the same counter to anyone else making it.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
IMO, if PFS GMs are not allowed to rule on a ~1 gp price uncertainty then the game is essentially unplayable.
That is, if there were a less than one gold uncertainty allowance then item upgrades, special materials, any and all percentage adjustments to costs, et cetera would pretty much have to go out the window as differences in order of operations and/or rounding can easily result in more than one gold price variation.
And... that only even becomes an issue if the GM rules that the listed price is not the price, that the book (indeed, all 3+ books with this kind of ammunition) contains an error in not showing the actual price, and that they can (indeed, MUST) over-rule the additional resources listing allowing the ammo.
All to avoid giving GMs the vast power to rule whether, for example, a grappling bolt costs 1 gold or 2?
Some clearly disagree, but tell me that you can at least see how this interpretation might seem more than a bit counter-intuitive.
|
|
But you're making no sense.
You're interjecting fallacy and personal opinion into a discussion and treating them as rules.
I choose to believe the game works. Arbitrarily banning things, and believing *your* personal opinion is correct, when it negatively impacts the game and player-GM interactions, is not a helpful position. It's not "the fairest ruling" you can make. It's extreme and damaging.
Ask yourself how this position you're taking is in any way positive. Ask yourself how it furthers fun. Ask yourself how this very debate makes your extreme position look.
I have no problem with you, but your argument is not valid, and I would do the same counter to anyone else making it.
Using terms like, " I'd like to think the game is playable," and "arbitrary," are personal and insulting. I've expressed more than once that i believe there is more than one interpretation. But which interpretation should I go with when asked to make a ruling at the table? I think it's silly to expect me to make a ruling different than the way I feel the rules work.
And to carry your phrase forward, I like to feel that PFS rules work, and when something is not defined, it isn't available in PFS. If you choose to extrapolate that to barding, that's your choice.
How about this:
Play with your durable bolts and shuriken.
If a GM states that they are not legal, use them as regular bolts/shuriken (or have a few regular ones in case) and have the bard/cleric/druid/sorcerer/wizard cast "mending" on them (as they weight less than a pound each, they can be repaired by the 0 level spell).
Please note that the Core, page 141, ammunition section states that "generally speaking, ammunition that hits its target is destroyed or rendered useless, while ammunition that misses....". To me this means that the arrow/bolt is broken (can no longer be fired), the shuriken has warps in the points rendering it unstable in flight (hence, can no longer be thrown accurately). Thus the spell "mending" should be able to repair them (as you will have all of the pieces).
Would the suggestion above be acceptable to both current sides of the discussion?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've expressed more than once that i believe there is more than one interpretation. But which interpretation should I go with when asked to make a ruling at the table? I think it's silly to expect me to make a ruling different than the way I feel the rules work.
John Compton has an answer for you.
|
|
Andrew, not everyone agrees with you. You're saying this item should be banned. That is extreme. That is damaging. Think about the repercussions of that line of thinking. How many ppl have to disagree on a rules element for it to become banned? 50%? 10%? 1 person?
The moment I declare that a dagger costs 5gp, does that make daggers illegal? I don't care what the CRB shows, I think it's wrong, therefore nobody can buy daggers?
The "fair" thing to do would be to allow the item to exist. It does. I can show you it does. I own the book. I'll be happy to scan the page and email it to you. You literally cannot say that it does not exist.
|
|
You are assuming I don't or am not willing to compromise at the table. Nowhere in my posts have I iterated such. The only "not at my table" was the adversarial and aggressive attitude you suggested. If you start the table off that way when as a GM I'm just trying to question things I see as not 109% certain, then I can tell that isn't an attitude that's going to lead to fun for either of us or any other player.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was wanting to get some durable Shurekin for my monk but when I asked about it on Facebook a debate sprung up because while all items are legal one person in the group argued strongly that because only arrows are statted only arrows are allowed in PFS.
The other side says it should be allowed because on page 20 of the Alchemy Manuel it says
"While Kyonin archers prefer alchemical arrows to other missile weapons,
characters can infuse other ammunition and thrown weapons that deal piercing damage (such as crossbow bolts, darts, and shuriken) with alchemical effects."
Thanks for bringing this up. I'll be allowing durable bolts and the like until we get a FAQ.
|
|
Andrew, not everyone agrees with you. You're saying this item should be banned. That is extreme. That is damaging. Think about the repercussions of that line of thinking. How many ppl have to disagree on a rules element for it to become banned? 50%? 10%? 1 person?
The moment I declare that a dagger costs 5gp, does that make daggers illegal? I don't care what the CRB shows, I think it's wrong, therefore nobody can buy daggers?
The "fair" thing to do would be to allow the item to exist. It does. I can show you it does. I own the book. I'll be happy to scan the page and email it to you. You literally cannot say that it does not exist.
I certainly am not saying that everyone agrees with me. It's obvious cause you are arguing with me. And there are others. But neither does everyone agree with you.
Never said anything should be banned. But until it lists how to purchase them, I don't see how we can. And existing or not, if it doesn't list pertinent info how am I to adjudicate it? I'm willing to work with the player, as long as they don't approach my questioning the way you did.
|
|
Anecdote time: the ARG errata had just come out. I was aware of it, and the implications the change to FCBs would have on characters. I also was aware that most players at Gen Con would most likely not be aware of it, because of the timing.
I felt the fair thing to do, was to allow the old usage while making the player aware of the change. This happened twice. The players were not happy about the change, but appreciated my leniency in light of the circumstances.
In practice, I'm willing to work with a player, and will most often side with the player. But on the boards, that us the place to ask the hard questions, and really explore what the rules mean and how they apply to PFS.
What I won't work with, is a bully, and your suggestion for a players reaction was not one willing to work with a GM or compromise, but one if aggression, arrogance, and bullying. That I absolutely will not put up with.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I had the first post in this thread, and in it I was so off that no one even bothered to directly tell me I was wrong. I had no idea 'durable' was an alchemical application!
After reading the thread, I find myself leaning towards Nefreet's argument. I think Andrew puts up a strong case, but I find myself unhappy with the guideline (rule?) against extrapolating a reasonable cost for items where they are not explicitly defined. Nefreet's suggestion of using a flat cost for all durable ammunition really seems reasonable to the extent it could barely be called an 'extrapolation'.
Lastly - it's not my business, so I apologize for the presumption - but I must say you two are too smart and too valuable to not get along. Reading through your debates is helpful to others (including me). A struggle between smart minds helps to generate solid conclusions. Your discussions with one another are educational and often even entertaining, and I do hope you keep it up.
|
|
Thanks, TG.
I take a strong stance on this for a few reasons.
1) Facebook is involved. I did a paper on how damaging Facebook is to social networks, and I've eschewed it from my personal life for years now. It offers visibility is both mildly positive and incredibly destructive ways. Hearing that this debate began on Facebook had me immediately jump to "damage control" mode (a position I've found myself in several times before).
2) It's one of those challenges to a basic principle. It's like claiming that the sky is really green, not blue. I can only read that section as pricing durable ammunition at 1gp. Durable is the go to ammunition for our region, and hearing anything to the contrary warrants the response of "you're not serious, right?"
3) The extreme nature of the response. Outright banning things is the sole ability of Campaign Leadership. Nobody in this thread has that authority. Nobody in this thread has the ability to turn a player away for selecting a legal option. To claim the possibility, and to do so on a globally public platform such as Facebook, damages the image of those claiming that authority, as well as Paizo and PFS.
As someone else mentioned up thread, what sort of message does this debate imply when we have to resort to extreme measures because of a possible discrepancy of 1 gold piece.
I dedicate a lot of my free time to this game and choose to believe it works. Some of the responses in this thread run counter to that philosophy, and I feel the need to counter them with equal extremity.
|
|
So, let's look at a way we can handle this that moves the game forward and makes it work. If you haven't read John's solution yet, now's as good a time as ever. It's actually binding for PFS GMs.
We've shown that Durable Bolts exist. That cannot be disputed. While *I* believe that there is only one possible price, I will accept for the sake of argument that you disagree and that a compromise must be met.
We can safely establish that 1gp is the lowest price possible for a Durable Bolt. If you can think of a lower possible price, we'll include it, but for this sake it's actually irrelevant.
What is the uppermost limit this item could be priced at? 500gp? 150gp? Since Bolts are twice the price of Arrows, and we're determining the price of one Bolt vs one Arrow, would you agree that the uppermost price limit would be 2gp?
That means that if Durable Bolts exist (which we know they do), then they must be priced anywhere between 1gp and 2gp.
So, if someone pays 2gp for a Durable Bolt, then they could have done no wrong. At worst, they've overpaid.
Now comes John's solution. Say you GM a table where a player has done the horrific practice of paying 1gp for their Durable Bolts. What is a way that we can satisfy this incredible need to overpay while simultaneously allowing the player to enjoy their character?
Sounds to me that you could ask them to cross off two check boxes for every Durable Bolt that they lose.
Does that sound reasonable to you?
|
|
Seems to me that's referring to items with no cost, or mechanical effects, listed at all.
Durable ammunition has a cost, and mechanical effects, it's just that people disagree as to what the cost should actually be.
If that quote indeed does apply to this discussion, then every item I covered earlier likewise becomes illegal.
|
That question goes to anyone that believes Durable Bolts don't cost 1gp.
Let's hash this out now so that it never happens again.
the reasonable solution (and the one I have most often seen) is durable other stuff is +1 GP per piece of ammunition - so 11gp for 10 durable bolts - 12 gp for 10 durable cold iron bolts -etc.
It was certainly the formula I was told to use for my durable harrow deck - base cost plus +1 gp per piece of ammunition
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you are using durable amunition that is not arrows you should expect table variation up to and including it not being allowed at the table.
No, you really shouldn't and you definitely shouldn't have to.
This ridiculous level of persnicketyness that is itself so hyperbolic that it would be unbelievable as a parody is what keeps people away from PFS.
Other Types of Ammunition: While Kyonin archers
prefer alchemical arrows to other missile weapons,
characters can infuse other ammunition and thrown
weapons that deal piercing damage (such as crossbow
bolts, darts, and shuriken) with alchemical effects.
Aside from differing base statistics, these alternative
types of alchemical ammunition have effects identical
to the alchemical arrows listed here. However, firearm
ammunition can’t be imbued with alchemical ingredients,
nor can ammunition types that don’t deal piercing damage
There is NO way you can reasonably expect a player to read that and then conclude that they can't get alchemical crossbow bolts because someone literally wants to pinch pennies.
If you want the best chance of being able to use durable ammunition that is not arrows (and in the absence of the previously mentioned FAQ or errata)
Walk. Vote with your feet. DM yourself. If the DM is going to be THAT uptight, leave.
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
Watching, amused at the thought of a flurry of tanglefoot shirikin.
Been there, done that, earned a couple of looks after I said "tangleshot shuriken", of course at that point my characters already had a substance abuse problem with tangleshot arrows (and heighten awareness^^).
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Watching, amused at the thought of a flurry of tanglefoot shuiriken.Been there, done that, earned a couple of looks after I said "tangleshot shuriken", of course at that point my characters already had a substance abuse problem with tangleshot arrows (and heighten awareness^^).
Everyone kids me about my melee characters using tangleshot arrows* let alone my archerologist. At least until the fight breaks out and they're being missed because of entangle, or hitting because of entangle. It's like 'bardsong on a stick'. :-) Then again so are tanglefoot/burn bags.
|
|
Seems reasonable to me, if they're going to cause this much rancor.Easy solution: Ban durable anything.
Isn't that elegant?
Mmmm... 'reasonable'.
Would also apply to 'grappling anything', 'barbed anything', 'incendiary anything', 'bleeding anything', 'dye anything', 'lodestone anything', 'pheromone anything', 'raining anything', 'slow burn anything', 'splintercloud anything', 'tangleshot anything', and 'trip anything'.
Definitely better to banish fire, rain, and blood from the game world than allow GMs to make a 1 gp judgement call. :]
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
Watching, amused at the thought of a flurry of tanglefoot shuiriken.Been there, done that, earned a couple of looks after I said "tangleshot shuriken", of course at that point my characters already had a substance abuse problem with tangleshot arrows (and heighten awareness^^).Everyone kids me about my melee characters using tangleshot arrows* let alone my archerologist. At least until the fight breaks out and they're being missed because of entangle, or hitting because of entangle. It's like 'bardsong on a stick'. :-) Then again so are tanglefoot/burn bags.
** spoiler omitted **
I have similar experiences, most of my melee characters carry a bow and have to option to play tanky when required - that said, tangleshot arrows are a bit under priced. The cost of a single arrow is negligible to an archer with 4+ attack, drawing and throwing a tanglefoot bat is more time consuming.
That said, tangleshot arrows really are not the worst offenders when it comes to "value for money" and alchemical ammunition.|
|
Seems reasonable to me, if they're going to cause this much rancor.Easy solution: Ban durable anything.
Isn't that elegant?
Mmmm... 'reasonable'.
Would also apply to 'grappling anything', 'barbed anything', 'incendiary anything', 'bleeding anything', 'dye anything', 'lodestone anything', 'pheromone anything', 'raining anything', 'slow burn anything', 'splintercloud anything', 'tangleshot anything', and 'trip anything'.
Definitely better to banish fire, rain, and blood from the game world than allow GMs to make a 1 gp judgement call. :]
If reasonable people are going to act like children over something so inconsequential, then it is absolutely reasonable to just ban the thing that is causing the issue. If we can't at least be decnt to each other, than we shouldn't get nice things.
|
|
Seems reasonable to me, if they're going to cause this much rancor.Easy solution: Ban durable anything.
Isn't that elegant?
This is the internet. "Causing rancor" is about the lowest bar you could set without coal mining in hell.
That said, if you really want to go down that road, I'll be happy to jump on the "let's ban paladins" thread if you want to start it... because there's no rancor in PF like "paladin falls!" rancor...
-TimD
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Not sure they're underpriced. The DCs are lower to get out of it, though they are faster than tanglefoot bags. My Archerologist usually throws normal arrow/tangleshot or normal/normal/tangleshot with haste (no rapid shot, though Deadly Aim is mostly 'always on')
I think banning the tangleshot arrow would stray close to 'fighters can't have nice things' with black tentacles (or Rime Ice Storm*) being more entangling.
Back on Topic I like having just 10 durable arrows for my 'bow as backup' characters. :-)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If reasonable people are going to act like children over something so inconsequential, then it is absolutely reasonable to just ban the thing that is causing the issue. If we can't at least be decnt to each other, than we shouldn't get nice things.
We don't build policy on corner cases. I submit that the durable arrows should be banned if they are causing widespread campaign problems, not because there are people arguing about them on the internet.
|
|
If reasonable people are going to act like children over something so inconsequential, then it is absolutely reasonable to just ban the thing that is causing the issue. If we can't at least be decnt to each other, than we shouldn't get nice things.
Perhaps insulting people and seeking to 'punish' them isn't the best way to promote 'decent' behaviour.
Just a thought.
|
|
Easy solution: Ban durable anything.
Isn't that elegant?
No. Its a tac nuke for something that requires an eye roll.
How about we ban people from making up rules and then banning legal items from not following the rules that they made up.
There is nothing that gives the price of an alchemical arrow as arrow cost +X. There is a given cost, and it can come in bolt, javelin, or even halfling sharpstone form. You're buying a 160 gp piece of alchemical equipment, I think the alchemist can eat the difference between a 2 copper arrow and a 1 gp javelin.