Ultimate Equipment update


Product Discussion

151 to 200 of 221 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies, Representative - D20 Hobbies

They missed some things like cleaning up spiked shields better, since they are going to need more direct language (unfortunately) to stop the "it's not an 'as if' item" folk.

Grand Lodge

Azten wrote:
Adding to the items that can save your life, Aegis of Recovery is a relatively cheap item, even at lower levels, that can keep you on your feet.

Or set you up to be extra dead if the enemy still has attacks after the one that activates it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
They missed some things like cleaning up spiked shields better, since they are going to need more direct language (unfortunately) to stop the "it's not an 'as if' item" folk.

They made it stronger by changing the price to be a flat number everywhere instead of an adjustment from spikes. This makes the spiked shield a standalone item instead of a shield that has been modified by spikes.

But, the argument breaks both ways. If you say armor spikes are shield spikes, then that means the same would apply to the klar. So then, attacks with the klar are clearly shield bashes, and so can benefit from the bashing enchant.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies, Representative - D20 Hobbies

Melkiador wrote:
Spiked shield doesn't stack with bashing per a FAQ that spawned from a thread with 107 FAQ clicks asking if spiked bashing shields stacked.

I get that you differ on that opinion. I guess it comes down to table variance, altho I think from your perspective the table variance will be greater than from my perspective.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
Spiked shield doesn't stack with bashing per a FAQ that spawned from a thread with 107 FAQ clicks asking if spiked bashing shields stacked.
I get that you differ on that opinion. I guess it comes down to table variance, altho I think from your perspective the table variance will be greater than from my perspective.

That FAQ is overwritten by this errata source. The spiked shield doesn't even have shield spikes. It has armor spikes.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies, Representative - D20 Hobbies

Melkiador wrote:
The spiked shield doesn't even have shield spikes. It has armor spikes.

That first isn't a change, as that language didn't change and second, is a known error that apparently got missed in the errata.


James Risner wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
The spiked shield doesn't even have shield spikes. It has armor spikes.

That first isn't a change, as that language didn't change and second, is a known error that apparently got missed in the errata.

You have no proof of that. And it sounds incredibly unlikely when you consider how much attention these items received in the errata.

Silver Crusade

Melkiador wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
Spiked shield doesn't stack with bashing per a FAQ that spawned from a thread with 107 FAQ clicks asking if spiked bashing shields stacked.
I get that you differ on that opinion. I guess it comes down to table variance, altho I think from your perspective the table variance will be greater than from my perspective.
That FAQ is overwritten by this errata source. The spiked shield doesn't even have shield spikes. It has armor spikes.

So sayeth a silly crocodile in a silly suit.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Hey!

Edit: oh, I see, someone else.


Melkiador wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
Spiked shield doesn't stack with bashing per a FAQ that spawned from a thread with 107 FAQ clicks asking if spiked bashing shields stacked.
I get that you differ on that opinion. I guess it comes down to table variance, altho I think from your perspective the table variance will be greater than from my perspective.
That FAQ is overwritten by this errata source. The spiked shield doesn't even have shield spikes. It has armor spikes.

We have a recent thread for discussing the "the rules for shields with shield spikes don't apply to spiked shields" over here


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Dwarven stout has been increased by 2 coppers!
What The Forge!
They doubled the price!
Doubled!
What the ForgeForge!
They've taxed dwarven craft beer!

And it is left to a Gnome to point this out?
Because wines are now the beverage of Dwarf choice?

For shame!
For shame!
For shame!

Used to be that Dwarfs gave a shozbot about their beer.

Clearly those days are gone ...because Dwarves are watery wine drinkers.
Perhaps Dwarven stout is now too heavy for Dwarf bellies.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:

If you follow FAQ and the forums, you knew these items were being changed:

  • Amulet of Mighty Fists to CRB price.
  • Courageous weapon changed to match FAQ and original design.
  • Quick Runner's often mentioned as a problem item.
  • Bracers of Falcon's Aim was a known pricing error.
  • Snapleaf was a single use item and some felt that wasn't clear.
  • Mithril items wasn't priced correctly by Mithril rules.
  • Scorpion whip deviated from the new AA design.
  • Sleeves of Many Garments has FAQ so we knew change was coming.
  • Ring of Continuation also had FAQ.

So those items were not effectively errata Friday as much as whenever the original issue was identified and FAQ and/or forum posts made regarding them.

See, if the Bracers of Falcon's Aim was "just a pricing error", why didn't they just jack up the price to like, say, 10,000 gp and call it a day? Why did they have to tank the item by making it nigh-worthless?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Blackwaltzomega wrote:

I don't think there's a single thing in this errata I'm happy about.

Brawling Armor gets a massive price hike, making it basically inaccessible in many games. Amulet gets slightly cheaper to compensate.

Quick Runner's Shirt, Feather Step Slippers, and Bracers of Falcon's Aim not only get significantly weaker, they frigging salted the earth on Quick Runner's Shirt. The Shirt used to be a nice trick for special occasions when the party bruiser needed to get in close and wreck something's face once a day, but now the only time I imagine it's going to be used is for a caster to cast a spell and double-move, and even that's pretty thin. I don't see the Slippers getting a lot of use anymore if you have to burn actions during combat to use them, either. Jiangsha might've been a bit of a must-have before, but now it is similarly of very little use to anyone compared to the other items that give deflection bonuses.

I think the thing that infuriated me most reading this was the Sleeves of Many Garments alteration, because this is the Steadfast Personality of this batch of errata.

A completely arbitrary reduction in power of a harmless, fun little option that can in no way break the game. This is the silly little flavor item players have fun with, allowing their characters to always have a cool outfit for the occasion. In what possible world is using an item slot for a fun little bit of roleplay somehow so wrong it needed to be nerfed?

Y'know, at this point I'm conditioned to feel only a deep-seated dread when errata is released. Each one I've read has been bursting with changes I don't like and I can't even ignore a number of these decisions no matter how strongly I disagree with them because my group relies heavily on the PRD for reference.

I agree with you view of how erratas influence the game interrest for most gamers, I feel very angry of the last erratas edited by the designers because it removes completely interresting options, as dext to damage for TWF, the swift move once a day, or avoid a critical strike once a day, it seems that they have a real hatred of options for melee characters...

My issue is that I'm not a kid, I play RPGs for more than 30 years, I'm not a powergamer, I like to have efficient character, my two handed fighter for Carrion Crown, has a Jingasa and a Shirt, not a bunch of them, I have to rewrite once again (the first time was for Antagonize Errata), but it seems that the Design Team consider me like a kid.
I have no issue with the 24 hours rules, it is applied on several items and has a roleplay interrest (establish a link with the item can be fun to roleplay..), but overnerfing an item instead trying to find a balance for it (Cost, Link in 24 hours, Class restriction...) makes me sad, because it seems that there is no reflexion behind only a childish reaction to something annoying...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Interesting =/= Optimal

The Jingasa is still an interesting item.


What's about Bracers of Falcon’s Aim price?
Spell Effect, use-activated or continuous: Spell level × caster level × 2,000 gp and x2 for 1 minute/level duration. That's 4,000 gp for 1st level spell.
BTW, new item should cost Spell level × caster level × 1,800 gp/(5/1 per day). That's 360 gp.
Yeah, I remember that preset item cost is what's matter, so it's like, may be I've missed something?


Fokodan wrote:

What's about Bracers of Falcon’s Aim price?

Spell Effect, use-activated or continuous: Spell level × caster level × 2,000 gp and x2 for 1 minute/level duration. That's 4,000 gp for 1st level spell.
BTW, new item should cost Spell level × caster level × 1,800 gp/(5/1 per day). That's 360 gp.
Yeah, I remember that preset item cost is what's matter, so it's like, may be I've missed something?

Aha, and continuous True Strike should be around 20000 gp?

Bottom line. Bracers of Falcon's Aim were not just underpriced. No, they were BROKEN.
Permanent effect that dublicates very powerful personal druid/ranger-only spell?
That grants you stackable very powerful critical-boosting effect for bows and crossbows?
This item was so broken that it was complete idiotism not to buy one (if it was available) for every bow and crossbow build.
And even if they would be priced 20000 gp or 30000 gp they will still be broken, it will just delay their purchase till mid-high level, but they would still remain a must have item.

Overall, I would like to THANK Paizo for this errata. It's sad that we had to wait for it all those years, but it's better late than never.
Good job, Paizo! Just please, please, issue erratas more frequently.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Mrakvampire wrote:

Overall, I would like to THANK Paizo for this errata. It's sad that we had to wait for it all those years, but it's better late than never.

Good job, Paizo! Just please, please, issue erratas more frequently.

The item was definitely broken, but I honestly don't understand how anyone can be happy with the end result. When is turning items into dead space on the page ever good?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Mrakvampire wrote:

Overall, I would like to THANK Paizo for this errata. It's sad that we had to wait for it all those years, but it's better late than never.

Good job, Paizo! Just please, please, issue erratas more frequently.
The item was definitely broken, but I honestly don't understand how anyone can be happy with the end result. When is turning items into dead space on the page ever good?

I see post like the first one, and I really wonder if this is why Paizo 'rebalancing' is accepted. Like are you happy that the item is made entirely unviable now? There's very few people saying that the items weren't broken (jingasa could have been 2 items easily), but is this salt the earth level of errata really acceptable to some people who just didn't like something? Wouldn't you rather seen something simply made good instead of broken rather than broken bad instead of broken good?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Actually the change to a deflection bonus on the Jingasa of the Fortunate solider has the bigger impact on some of the games I run and am kinda excited to see it. One player that min/maxes and finds strange synergies in the game has a pugwampi gremlin with the unlucky aura.

For the price of 5000gp and up he can supply himself and his compatriots as he gains cash to ignore the aura with the old Jingasa vs. a luck stone that costs 20000gp each. This leads to every single enemy rolling twice for every d20 roll within 20 feet and taking the lower roll and the rest of the party ignoring it.

Although I agree with many of the posters that I would rather see them fixed to be balanced then just worthless and a waste of page space.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Jaçinto wrote:
I have talked to people that have ended subscriptions and quit over this kind of stuff in the past. A game store I even frequent is quite fed up with them. It feels like they may be killing their own game by doing these things without checking if the people who will actually be buying and playing with it actually like it.

Agreed. Errata like this is the best advertisement for D&D 5th edition I have seen in a long time. Certainly better than anything the makers of 5th Edition itself have come up with.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
ninthwatcher wrote:

Actually the change to a deflection bonus on the Jingasa of the Fortunate solider has the bigger impact on some of the games I run and am kinda excited to see it. One player that min/maxes and finds strange synergies in the game has a pugwampi gremlin with the unlucky aura.

For the price of 5000gp and up he can supply himself and his compatriots as he gains cash to ignore the aura with the old Jingasa vs. a luck stone that costs 20000gp each. This leads to every single enemy rolling twice for every d20 roll within 20 feet and taking the lower roll and the rest of the party ignoring it.

Although I agree with many of the posters that I would rather see them fixed to be balanced then just worthless and a waste of page space.

But that's hardly a Jingasa issue, that's a Pugwampi issue. Crafter's Fortune is 1. level, last 24 hours, and provides a luck bonus.

Silver Crusade

Menacing Shade of mauve wrote:
ninthwatcher wrote:

Actually the change to a deflection bonus on the Jingasa of the Fortunate solider has the bigger impact on some of the games I run and am kinda excited to see it. One player that min/maxes and finds strange synergies in the game has a pugwampi gremlin with the unlucky aura.

For the price of 5000gp and up he can supply himself and his compatriots as he gains cash to ignore the aura with the old Jingasa vs. a luck stone that costs 20000gp each. This leads to every single enemy rolling twice for every d20 roll within 20 feet and taking the lower roll and the rest of the party ignoring it.

Although I agree with many of the posters that I would rather see them fixed to be balanced then just worthless and a waste of page space.

But that's hardly a Jingasa issue, that's a Pugwampi issue. Crafter's Fortune is 1. level, last 24 hours, and provides a luck bonus.

Eh, I don't think that would work since it doesn't constantly give you a luck bonus, it just gives it to you on your next craft check.

So Unless a Pugwampi breaks into your workshop you're still out of luck (pun sorta not intended).


N. Jolly wrote:
I see post like the first one, and I really wonder if this is why Paizo 'rebalancing' is accepted. Like are you happy that the item is made entirely unviable now? There's very few people saying that the items weren't broken (jingasa could have been 2 items easily), but is this salt the earth level of errata really acceptable to some people who just didn't like something? Wouldn't you rather seen something simply made good instead of broken rather than broken bad instead of broken good?

What item is unviable now?

Bracers of Falcon's Aim? Even with nerf it's normal, usable item.
For just 4000 gold you can make your bow 19-20/x3 for entire combat (it's unique ability that can't be replicated even by weapon enchantment). Only downside is activation time, but there are cases when you have at least 1 round of preparation before combat starts.

And do not compare this item to similar Wands. This item doesn't require UMD investment and doesn't have chance of failure during activation (as you will have until +19 UMD skill)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mrakvampire wrote:
N. Jolly wrote:
I see post like the first one, and I really wonder if this is why Paizo 'rebalancing' is accepted. Like are you happy that the item is made entirely unviable now? There's very few people saying that the items weren't broken (jingasa could have been 2 items easily), but is this salt the earth level of errata really acceptable to some people who just didn't like something? Wouldn't you rather seen something simply made good instead of broken rather than broken bad instead of broken good?

What item is unviable now?

Bracers of Falcon's Aim? Even with nerf it's normal, usable item.
For just 4000 gold you can make your bow 19-20/x3 for entire combat (it's unique ability that can't be replicated even by weapon enchantment). Only downside is activation time, but there are cases when you have at least 1 round of preparation before combat starts.

And do not compare this item to similar Wands. This item doesn't require UMD investment and doesn't have chance of failure during activation (as you will have until +19 UMD skill)

2.000 gp for 80 scrolls of Aspect of the Falcon.

2.000 gp for a cracked vibrant purple prism.

You can now recharge your stone outside of combat (so a single skill rank and a total modifier of +1 or better is all the UMD you need, assuming no-one in your party has the spell on their list), you're not limited to 1/day, you can use your stone for even better buffs, and you have a free wrist slot.

Silver Crusade

Mrakvampire wrote:
N. Jolly wrote:
I see post like the first one, and I really wonder if this is why Paizo 'rebalancing' is accepted. Like are you happy that the item is made entirely unviable now? There's very few people saying that the items weren't broken (jingasa could have been 2 items easily), but is this salt the earth level of errata really acceptable to some people who just didn't like something? Wouldn't you rather seen something simply made good instead of broken rather than broken bad instead of broken good?

What item is unviable now?

Bracers of Falcon's Aim? Even with nerf it's normal, usable item.
For just 4000 gold you can make your bow 19-20/x3 for entire combat (it's unique ability that can't be replicated even by weapon enchantment). Only downside is activation time, but there are cases when you have at least 1 round of preparation before combat starts.

And do not compare this item to similar Wands. This item doesn't require UMD investment and doesn't have chance of failure during activation (as you will have until +19 UMD skill)

I'll say it's not viable for what it used to be. Unlike everyone else, I'm not going to get into item prices, as I can easily admit it was silly underpriced. But a standard use item like this just isn't worth what it would have been. Personally, had it been a move or swift round activation, while it's only once per day, I'd have been fine with it. And really, I don't have to say it's unviable, as the amount of people no longer using it will prove that.

What I would like is to see if:

A-PFS legalizes it (it was [rightfully so] banned in PFS)
B-We get some rough numbers on how many people are picking it up

I'll repeat myself in that I agree we needed an errata, but I don't think the severity of the errata was justified. I don't even think Jingasa's worthless now, but to use my own terminology for this, it went from a blue to an orange rating wise.

What I WILL say here is that the power level for those item slots went down a lot, as wrist/head were pretty unpopular as far as item slots go. So while I've complained about it, I will say in a design sense that this is probably a good thing for the game (please no one quote me saying otherwise, I realize my opinion is changing here).

What this will HOPEFULLY allow is for new items to take their place of lower power level, and quite a few as well. If we received a few fun and flavorful items in the head/wrist slot, I'd actually be entirely cool with this even if it does reek of Paizo "Here's a good option, a new option comes out, we nerf the previous one" that has been pervasive in their errata.

But at least from a design standpoint, I don't dislike the errata as a whole anymore, just the lack of communication involved in it and the severity of it.


Menacing Shade of mauve wrote:


2.000 gp for 80 scrolls of Aspect of the Falcon.
2.000 gp for a cracked vibrant purple prism.

You can now recharge your stone outside of combat (so a single skill rank and a total modifier of +1 or better is all the UMD you need, assuming no-one in your party has the spell on their list), you're not limited to 1/day, you can use your stone for even better buffs, and you have a free wrist slot.

Assuming that GM will allow you to somehow buy 80 scrolls of druid/ranger only spell, you still need to have Wisdom 11+ and Charisma 10+ to be able with only 1 rank in UMD use this trick.

And btw, how are you supposed to store a spell into this ioun stone if as per RAW of ring of spell storing...

Quote:

A ring of spell storing contains up to 5 levels of spells (either divine or arcane, or even a mix of both spell types) that the wearer can cast.

A spellcaster can cast any spells into the ring, so long as the total spell levels do not add up to more than 5

Use Magic Device do not make you a spellcaster (you need to have CL 1+ for this, and it doesn't allow you to qualify for 'wearer can cast').


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mrakvampire wrote:
Menacing Shade of mauve wrote:


2.000 gp for 80 scrolls of Aspect of the Falcon.
2.000 gp for a cracked vibrant purple prism.

You can now recharge your stone outside of combat (so a single skill rank and a total modifier of +1 or better is all the UMD you need, assuming no-one in your party has the spell on their list), you're not limited to 1/day, you can use your stone for even better buffs, and you have a free wrist slot.

Assuming that GM will allow you to somehow buy 80 scrolls of druid/ranger only spell, you still need to have Wisdom 11+ and Charisma 10+ to be able with only 1 rank in UMD use this trick.

And btw, how are you supposed to store a spell into this ioun stone if as per RAW of ring of spell storing...

Quote:

A ring of spell storing contains up to 5 levels of spells (either divine or arcane, or even a mix of both spell types) that the wearer can cast.

A spellcaster can cast any spells into the ring, so long as the total spell levels do not add up to more than 5
Use Magic Device do not make you a spellcaster (you need to have CL 1+ for this, and it doesn't allow you to qualify for 'wearer can cast').

80 is an absurd number. It was picked to make the costs match. The point is that the bracers are a terrible waste of gold.

A Ring of Spell Storing allows the wearer to cast the stored spells, whether or not he's a caster. That's the point. It takes a caster and/or a scroll to recharge it.

And I am arguing from an assumption of actual play, so the UMD is really not an issue as long as I don't have to do it in combat time.


Menacing Shade of mauve wrote:

A Ring of Spell Storing allows the wearer to cast the stored spells, whether or not he's a caster. That's the point. It takes a caster and/or a scroll to recharge it.

And I am arguing from an assumption of actual play, so the UMD is really not an issue as long as I don't have to do it in combat time.

In order to store a spell in ring of spell storing you must be able to cast a spell and be a spellcaster.

I still don't see how UMD grants you ability to cast spells and be a spellcaster.
After all, UMD doesn't allow you to qualify for any feats or prestige classes that require ability to cast spells.

So, if you don't have druid or ranger in your group your trick doesn't work.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mrakvampire wrote:
Menacing Shade of mauve wrote:

A Ring of Spell Storing allows the wearer to cast the stored spells, whether or not he's a caster. That's the point. It takes a caster and/or a scroll to recharge it.

And I am arguing from an assumption of actual play, so the UMD is really not an issue as long as I don't have to do it in combat time.

In order to store a spell in ring of spell storing you must be able to cast a spell and be a spellcaster.

I still don't see how UMD grants you ability to cast spells and be a spellcaster.
After all, UMD doesn't allow you to qualify for any feats or prestige classes that require ability to cast spells.

So, if you don't have druid or ranger in your group your trick doesn't work.

Assuming that "must be a spellcaster" is even a rule and not a description of the common use case, my Cleric buddy can use the scroll for me. Yes, one could say that I'm moving the goal posts here by requiring a teammate to have spent a skill point in one of the 3 top skills in the game, but all of this UMD nonsense goes out the window with a single level of Ranger or Hunter anyways.

Silver Crusade

Menacing Shade of mauve wrote:
Mrakvampire wrote:
Menacing Shade of mauve wrote:

A Ring of Spell Storing allows the wearer to cast the stored spells, whether or not he's a caster. That's the point. It takes a caster and/or a scroll to recharge it.

And I am arguing from an assumption of actual play, so the UMD is really not an issue as long as I don't have to do it in combat time.

In order to store a spell in ring of spell storing you must be able to cast a spell and be a spellcaster.

I still don't see how UMD grants you ability to cast spells and be a spellcaster.
After all, UMD doesn't allow you to qualify for any feats or prestige classes that require ability to cast spells.

So, if you don't have druid or ranger in your group your trick doesn't work.

Assuming that "must be a spellcaster" is even a rule and not a description of the common use case, my Cleric buddy can use the scroll for me. Yes, one could say that I'm moving the goal posts here by requiring a teammate to have spent a skill point in one of the 3 top skills in the game, but all of this UMD nonsense goes out the window with a single level of Ranger or Hunter anyways.

Rangers don't get caster's levels till 4th, just a heads up.


Rysky wrote:
Menacing Shade of mauve wrote:
Mrakvampire wrote:


In order to store a spell in ring of spell storing you must be able to cast a spell and be a spellcaster.
I still don't see how UMD grants you ability to cast spells and be a spellcaster.
After all, UMD doesn't allow you to qualify for any feats or prestige classes that require ability to cast spells.

So, if you don't have druid or ranger in your group your trick doesn't work.

Assuming that "must be a spellcaster" is even a rule and not a description of the common use case, my Cleric buddy can use the scroll for me. Yes, one could say that I'm moving the goal posts here by requiring a teammate to have spent a skill point in one of the 3 top skills in the game, but all of this UMD nonsense goes out the window with a single level of Ranger or Hunter anyways.
Rangers don't get caster's levels till 4th, just a heads up.

Rangers use wands from level 1 and don't bother with Spell Storing ioun stones.


Menacing Shade of mauve wrote:
Assuming that "must be a spellcaster" is even a rule and not a description of the common use case, my Cleric buddy can use the scroll for me. Yes, one could say that I'm moving the goal posts here by requiring a teammate to have spent a skill point in one of the 3 top skills in the game, but all of this UMD nonsense goes out the window with a single level of Ranger or Hunter anyways.

Assuming your cleric buddy can somehow qualify as "able to cast druid/ranger spell" (and I must repeat myself, UMD doesn't allow you to do this) - then fine. Maybe he is cleric/druid or cleric/ranger...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mrakvampire wrote:
UMD doesn't allow you to do this

UMD allows you to emulate class feature. So, assuming "being spellcaster" is druid class feature (and you know, "spells" is a part of "class feature" section), you rogue just need UMD DC 20 roll. You still, may be, need DC 26 to emulate ability score and 3rd check DC 21 to use scroll. Ta-da!


Fokodan wrote:
UMD allows you to emulate class feature. So, assuming "being spellcaster" is druid class feature (and you know, "spells" is a part of "class feature" section), you rogue just need UMD DC 20 roll. You still, may be, need DC 26 to emulate ability score and 3rd check DC 21 to use scroll. Ta-da!

Ta-da, so how many points you should invest to UMD to consistently beat those DCs? Argument was that even with +1 UMD you can use this trick.

Even if we have Wis 11+:
So, we have to beat DC 21 to cast spell from scroll. Immediately we need to make DC 20 to emulate class ability for ioun stone.
5% chance and 10% chance... Overall we have 0,5% chance per attempt to recharge ioun stone. We also have 5% per attempt to not be able activate this exact scroll for 24 hours and another 5% per attempt to not be able to emulate class feature for ious stone.

Good luck trying! :D

Silver Crusade

Menacing Shade of mauve wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Menacing Shade of mauve wrote:
Mrakvampire wrote:


In order to store a spell in ring of spell storing you must be able to cast a spell and be a spellcaster.
I still don't see how UMD grants you ability to cast spells and be a spellcaster.
After all, UMD doesn't allow you to qualify for any feats or prestige classes that require ability to cast spells.

So, if you don't have druid or ranger in your group your trick doesn't work.

Assuming that "must be a spellcaster" is even a rule and not a description of the common use case, my Cleric buddy can use the scroll for me. Yes, one could say that I'm moving the goal posts here by requiring a teammate to have spent a skill point in one of the 3 top skills in the game, but all of this UMD nonsense goes out the window with a single level of Ranger or Hunter anyways.
Rangers don't get caster's levels till 4th, just a heads up.
Rangers use wands from level 1 and don't bother with Spell Storing ioun stones.

*goes and reads back over wands*

Oh wow! Has it always been that way or was it changed in Pathfinder?

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies, Representative - D20 Hobbies

Ashram wrote:
Bracers of Falcon's Aim was "just a pricing error", why didn't they just jack up the price to like, say, 10,000 gp and call it a day? Why did they have to tank the item by making it nigh-worthless?

Pricing error doesn't mean, "we want this item as is, we just priced it incorrectly."

In this case I think it means "wow this item is too good for continuous and priced way too low even raising to 10,000 gp would've too cheap, keep same price and make it 1/day."

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies, Representative - D20 Hobbies

Rysky wrote:
Oh wow! Has it always been that way or was it changed in Pathfinder?

Always


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mrakvampire wrote:
Fokodan wrote:
UMD allows you to emulate class feature. So, assuming "being spellcaster" is druid class feature (and you know, "spells" is a part of "class feature" section), you rogue just need UMD DC 20 roll. You still, may be, need DC 26 to emulate ability score and 3rd check DC 21 to use scroll. Ta-da!

Ta-da, so how many points you should invest to UMD to consistently beat those DCs? Argument was that even with +1 UMD you can use this trick.

Even if we have Wis 11+:
So, we have to beat DC 21 to cast spell from scroll. Immediately we need to make DC 20 to emulate class ability for ioun stone.
5% chance and 10% chance... Overall we have 0,5% chance per attempt to recharge ioun stone. We also have 5% per attempt to not be able activate this exact scroll for 24 hours and another 5% per attempt to not be able to emulate class feature for ious stone.

Good luck trying! :D

Blah blah blah spellcaster overlords blah your own fault for not picking a caster blah.

We need to make sure we maintain the status quo where only one group has access to the good game features right?

After these discussions I kind of wonder why umd isn't on every non casters list. The devs are clearly saying umd or gtfo.


master_marshmallow wrote:

Interesting =/= Optimal

The Jingasa is still an interesting item.

But so far from optimal that no one would want to use it.

An interesting item is easy

A useful item is easy.

A balanced item is hard

All three together? Even paizo seems to succeed less than 1% of the time making them.


Ah if you read the scrolls section in magic items in the CRB it says that using a scroll is just like casting a spell prepared and cast in the normal way under determine effect this along with several other passages in the scroll section indicates that scroll + martial + ioun stone works.


Covent wrote:
Ah if you read the scrolls section in magic items in the CRB it says that using a scroll is just like casting a spell prepared and cast in the normal way under determine effect this along with several other passages in the scroll section indicates that scroll + martial + ioun stone works.

Ok, so fighter with 1 rank in UMD and bunch of scrolls in his scroll case can suddenly qualify for any arcane or divine prestige class that requires ability to cast arcane or divine spells of some level?

Stop trying to find things in rules that do not exist.
UMD =/= ability to cast spells. UMD allows you to bend rules, activate items, but still, you are NOT spellcaster and you do not possess ability to CAST spells.

Period.


Mrakvampire wrote:
Menacing Shade of mauve wrote:
Assuming that "must be a spellcaster" is even a rule and not a description of the common use case, my Cleric buddy can use the scroll for me. Yes, one could say that I'm moving the goal posts here by requiring a teammate to have spent a skill point in one of the 3 top skills in the game, but all of this UMD nonsense goes out the window with a single level of Ranger or Hunter anyways.
Assuming your cleric buddy can somehow qualify as "able to cast druid/ranger spell" (and I must repeat myself, UMD doesn't allow you to do this) - then fine. Maybe he is cleric/druid or cleric/ranger...

Sorry, I honestly don't understand what you're saying here. That you need casting ability to activate the stone, or that cleric can't UMD a druid scroll or what?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There are a lot of problems with the Bracers of Falcon Aim, a price increase would have been the best fix. now they are worthless as others have pointed out.

That is not the real problem is not the Bracers themselves, it is the spell that is the problem, the spell should not be a 1st level spell. Edit the spell to the correct level it should be and the price would fix it self. The spell is 1st level but it is give the power 3rd level spell with the critical adjustment. See Keen edge. but the spell is also giving you +5 to perception checks and a bonus to hit. The spell level should be 4th level. Now make the Bracers as 4th level druid spell or 3rd level ranger and you have a fair price for the for what it provided. Much like how Blessing of Fervor is balanced against haste.

All items that use this spell is going to be off balance do to the problem with the spell level. They did not fix the problem this spell is still going to be massively used in the form of potions,Scroll and Wands, just not in the form of the bracers any more.

Leave the items alone and start fixing the spells.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why all this ring slot discussion? Are people really saying that the ring slot is more valuable than the head slot (hint, it's not!)? The comparison is this:

Deflection +1 on head is *much worse* than a +1 scalable deflection on ring.

Negate 1 critical ever for 3,000gp, even assuming the above is worth it is probably overpriced. As people have pointed out, you get a free breath of life for approximately the same cost, and that's, in all likelyhood, better.

Don't get me wrong, Jingasa needed a nerf, but it didn't need that hard of a nerf. I think *either* change would have made the item fair (either change luck to deflection, or restict the critical negation to once ever). Though in this second case, you still have Fate's Favored breaking the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mrakvampire wrote:
Covent wrote:
Ah if you read the scrolls section in magic items in the CRB it says that using a scroll is just like casting a spell prepared and cast in the normal way under determine effect this along with several other passages in the scroll section indicates that scroll + martial + ioun stone works.

Ok, so fighter with 1 rank in UMD and bunch of scrolls in his scroll case can suddenly qualify for any arcane or divine prestige class that requires ability to cast arcane or divine spells of some level?

Stop trying to find things in rules that do not exist.
UMD =/= ability to cast spells. UMD allows you to bend rules, activate items, but still, you are NOT spellcaster and you do not possess ability to CAST spells.

Period.

Maybe you should just go and read what´s in the CRB under UMD.

Here.

I somehow also assume that Rysky is making jokes up there about the wands?

I sometimes get the feeling that there are tons of people who just don´t bother to read the actual rules and then stumble over some item because others who did read the rules love to use it often, then this networking clamouring for bans, errata and balance changes starts untill it gets there.
Please read the rules. Anyone with enough skill points and some CHA can use UMD quite well right from the start. Perhaps not reliably since you might roll a 1, but still, pretty fast anything can be emulated.
Why do you think quick draw was clarified to not work on wands, scroll, etc? A rogue with decent INT or CHA can get anywhere ;)

Also some people sound as if Jingasa denied any crit, but in all my sources as well on the web, it´s only working 1/day.
And for some people coming from older editions and many who are especially loud about this, in previous editions helmets denied any crit, without being magical, all the time.

Silver Crusade

James Risner wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Oh wow! Has it always been that way or was it changed in Pathfinder?
Always

Hmm, guess it's been a weird houserule/misunderstanding our group has used then >_<

Never used wands so I never thought much on it.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mrakvampire wrote:

Stop trying to find things in rules that do not exist.

UMD =/= ability to cast spells. UMD allows you to bend rules, activate items, but still, you are NOT spellcaster and you do not possess ability to CAST spells.

Period.

UMD wrote:
Check: You can use this skill to read a spell or to activate a magic item. Use Magic Device lets you use a magic item as if you had the spell ability or class features of another class, as if you were a different race, or as if you were of a different alignment.

What exactly do you think the bolded text means?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Oh wow! Has it always been that way or was it changed in Pathfinder?
Always
Hmm, guess it's been a weird houserule/misunderstanding our group has used then >_<

In my experience, exactly such stuff is a huge problem.

There so many people complaining about things they don´t even really researched or took the time to read and comprehend.

You won´t believe how often i hear people talk about their bad Pathfinder experiences just to find out that they played with houserules changing the whole system just because someone not understanding the rules thought it might be fun or sounds cooler.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Mrakvampire wrote:

Stop trying to find things in rules that do not exist.

UMD =/= ability to cast spells. UMD allows you to bend rules, activate items, but still, you are NOT spellcaster and you do not possess ability to CAST spells.

Period.

UMD wrote:
Check: You can use this skill to read a spell or to activate a magic item. Use Magic Device lets you use a magic item as if you had the spell ability or class features of another class, as if you were a different race, or as if you were of a different alignment.
What exactly do you think the bolded text means?

Please don´t do that TOZ.

Let people read the rules themselves so they might actually learn them instead of just browsing the forum, guides and minmax sources ;)

151 to 200 of 221 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Paizo Products / Product Discussion / Ultimate Equipment update All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.