| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have no problem with the item getting nerfed. I think that removing a luck bonus to AC is a bad move from both a mechanical and RP standpoint. The luck bonus matches both flavor and the mechanics of the game. I can understand removing the crit-be-gone part of it as that is difficult to price.
I think it is disingenuous to say that it was done because AC is too easy to get. The luck bonus to armor is something that has been codified in the system since previous iteration of the game and has never caused a problem in and of itself. Currently there is no item to take the place of obtaining the luck bonus. I didn't think that the Jingasa was a problem. It actually made you pay for a feature that you may not want (the crit-be-gone bit) in order to get something you did want (the luck bonus to AC).
If anything I think that the removal of the luck bonus hurts the power curve for the character types who would be most likely to buy it as there is nothing anyone can get that takes it's place currently.
No, I think a better option would have been to change it's price if the power it gave was out of line for it's price. Changing the item to something that doesn't resemble what it was meant for and doesn't give the mechanics that people are looking for is a mistake.
That being said, the purpose of this thread was not to complain. It was to look for other options now that it is gone.
AC being too easy to get has been a problem for a while, and there are threads out there doing the math to prove it.
Seriously we have citations in the recent errata b*tching threads of 7th level characters with flat standing ACs in the high 30's to low 40's.
When trying to run a game, either with enemies made from scratch or straight from the book, it isn't fun when the DM has to fish for 20's against every character.
Player entitlement is real.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is built into the basic system. If it is too easy to get then it has been too easy to get since 3.0. Take a look the table was the same back then and the luck bonus existed then as well. So if that is a problem then it is a problem that is inherent to the system. If that is the case then maybe repricing how much Luck bonuses cost would be a better solution. Removing them from existing in a form that a player can purchase is NOT a solution.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are actually several other items which grants a luck bonus to AC.
Here is one you might like:
But if you can't afford it, you should settle for its cheaper cousin.
And if you're desperate, go for this one. But beware, its not a real AC bonus. But it has a luck bonus to AC and can negate an attack as an immediate action once per day. It's almost as if the Jingasa never left you at all!
Edit:
Other than this, the only luck bonus to AC should be the spell Unwilling Shield (Sorc/Wiz 6), so I suggest you forget about a luck bonus to AC.
It is built into the basic system. If it is too easy to get then it has been too easy to get since 3.0. Take a look the table was the same back then and the luck bonus existed then as well. So if that is a problem then it is a problem that is inherent to the system. If that is the case then maybe repricing how much Luck bonuses cost would be a better solution. Removing them from existing in a form that a player can purchase is NOT a solution.
Did the Jingasa exist in 3.0?
Were there luck bonuses to AC as cheap as the Jingasa in 3.0?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If your character concept's linchpin is the availability of a single underpriced and overpowered item, well...
...perhaps you just wanted to improve the character's chance of survival. Very few character concepts consist of dying to a random critical hit.
It seems that it was the luck bonus to AC that was the main issue, given some of the information above. I bought the item for the ability to negate a crit a day.
On my cleric (which is the only character that had the item), it will likely be turned into the Buffering Cap and later a pearl of power so that he can cast Shield of Fortification multiple times.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The "big" 6 are definitely not required, and unfortunately a massive ingrained fear in people.
Case in point, I do not know what all of them are, do not go out my way to get the ones I do know about, and my attempts to find out exactly what all of them are was fruitless since nobody can apparently agree on what they are.
Seriously, I searched the boards and came up with 4 different versions of these "big" 6 that you "must have".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The "big" 6 are definitely not required, and unfortunately a massive ingrained fear in people.
Case in point, I do not know what all of them are, do not go out my way to get the ones I do know about, and my attempts to find out exactly what all of them are was fruitless since nobody can apparently agree on what they are.
Seriously, I searched the boards and came up with 4 different versions of these "big" 6 that you "must have".
Truth. Right. Here.
The "big 6" problem has been dealt with.
This is Shallowsoul vs. Magic Item Creation all over again.......
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess, if you have 2 rings you really want, you might want the jingasa, but I can't thing of 2 rings to get instead (3 if you get that necklace that grants extra ring slot).
It's only a +1 bonus, so it's not even a replacement for the ring.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What if I were to pop in here and suggest that there is no real solution to be found in rules changes? The real problem is much bigger than the woes of one little hat, and it lies in the intangible culture that has developed, which is far more powerful than written rules - the problem in particular here appears to be, let's call it the "powerless power gamer" culture (or "slave to the beans," which I like even better)
No no no. We can still comment on stupid rule changes (or weak/powerful items or whatever) whether we use the rule in our game or not, or whether the item is ever used or not.
And for those of us that play PFS, we don't really have a choice of whether to adhere to the rules or not. So yeah, the PFS commands me, lol.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No.... it's not for a damn good reason.
You are being petulant and repetitive at this point.
The luck bonus to AC was a problem, since most character's concepts revolved around exploiting Fate's Favored and the Jingasa which turned 5000 gp...
If luck bonuses was such a big deal why didnt they just remove or nerf Fate's favored? Its like the Alpha and Omega for everyone that have access to Divine favor, or the sacred tattoos for half-orc...
And +2 AC for 5k? Thats what it cost for +2 armor aswell! (for the enchanment costs alone)
I guess, if you have 2 rings you really want, you might want the jingasa, but I can't thing of 2 rings to get instead (3 if you get that necklace that grants extra ring slot).It's only a +1 bonus, so it's not even a replacement for the ring.
Unless you were only using a +1 ring? It's an alternative to the +1 ring, with a price range that comes in before a +2 ring, and has an added effect that will save your ass.
The ring thing has actually become an issue at my table, it's not that bad of an alternate option. It just doesn't stack with a ring anymore.
If the Ring of Protection wasn't the defining factor here, no one would be complaining.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The "big" 6 are definitely not required, and unfortunately a massive ingrained fear in people.
Case in point, I do not know what all of them are, do not go out my way to get the ones I do know about, and my attempts to find out exactly what all of them are was fruitless since nobody can apparently agree on what they are.
Seriously, I searched the boards and came up with 4 different versions of these "big" 6 that you "must have".
Truth. Right. Here.
The "big 6" problem has been dealt with.
This is Shallowsoul vs. Magic Item Creation all over again.......
It has? So players no longer feel the need to have:
Cloak of Resistance (shoulders)
Headband of stat boost (forehead)
Ring of Protection (ring)
Magic Weapon (weapon)
Magic Armor (armor)
Amulet of Natural Armor (neck)
The reason you're seeing debate on this is for a few reasons.
1. Casters don't need all of the big 6, as weapon/armor are just not vital for them.
2. The neck slot is the most subjective of the original items due to ROP being better in every way as well as certain neck slot items actually making builds like AoMF. Although that competition is still core, most other neck slot items are meh at best.
Jingasa and QR shirt were honestly honorable mentions to the big 6 as a head or body item slot isn't really that important. We picked them up to actually have something to put there rather than ramping up for our vital items.
Seriously, as a guide writer Jingasa and QR shirt were never purple (must have) items, I'd really only go as far as to say there's a big 3/4 depending on build, as only Cloak and Stat Boosters are super vital.
A magic weapon and/or armor just aren't negotiable for anyone who would need them though for damage, accuracy, DR penetration, and scores of other reasons. I myself like APB, and if/when we get a PF 2.0, I'd really like to see those integrated into the system. But as it is now, there are items that are needed by the game's own admission when considering the CR of monsters.
The "big" 6 are definitely not required, and unfortunately a massive ingrained fear in people.
Case in point, I do not know what all of them are, do not go out my way to get the ones I do know about, and my attempts to find out exactly what all of them are was fruitless since nobody can apparently agree on what they are.
Seriously, I searched the boards and came up with 4 different versions of these "big" 6 that you "must have".
Truth. Right. Here.
The "big 6" problem has been dealt with.
This is Shallowsoul vs. Magic Item Creation all over again.......
It has? So players no longer feel the need to have:
Cloak of Resistance (shoulders)
Headband of stat boost (forehead)
Ring of Protection (ring)
Magic Weapon (weapon)
Magic Armor (armor)
Amulet of Natural Armor (neck)The reason you're seeing debate on this is for a few reasons.
1. Casters don't need all of the big 6, as weapon/armor are just not vital for them.
2. The neck slot is the most subjective of the original items due to ROP being better in every way as well as certain neck slot items actually making builds like AoMF. Although that competition is still core, most other neck slot items are meh at best.
Jingasa and QR shirt were honestly honorable mentions to the big 6 as a head or body item slot isn't really that important. We picked them up to actually have something to put there rather than ramping up for our vital items.
Seriously, as a guide writer Jingasa and QR shirt were never purple (must have) items, I'd really only go as far as to say there's a big 3/4 depending on build, as only Cloak and Stat Boosters are super vital.
A magic weapon and/or armor just aren't negotiable for anyone who would need them though for damage, accuracy, DR penetration, and scores of other reasons. I myself like APB, and if/when we get a PF 2.0, I'd really like to see those integrated into the system. But as it is now, there are items that are needed by...
Sigh.....
There are more than one alternate rules systems out there to address the problem.
Automatic Bonus Progression -> No more need for the items at all.
Innate Item Bonuses -> Have your cake, but like, with more cake in it, like a super cake!
Although I just realized the Innate bonus progression for armor and weapons.... does nothing... literally nothing...
|
It has? So players no longer feel the need to have:
Magic Weapon (weapon)
Magic Armor (armor)
You don't think those two are just a wee bit overly broad? If not, may I present "the Big 14";
Magic Weapon (weapon)
Magic Armor (armor)
Magic Belt (belt)
Magic Overcloth (body)
Magic Shirt (chest)
Magic Eyewear (eyes)
Magic Footwear (feet)
Magic Gloves (hands)
Magic Headwear (head)
Magic Headband (headband)
Magic Neckwear (neck)
Magic Rings (rings)
Magic Shoulder padding (shoulders)
Magic Wristwear (wrists)
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sigh.....
There are more than one alternate rules systems out there to address the problem.
Automatic Bonus Progression -> No more need for the items at all.
Innate Item Bonuses -> Have your cake, but like, with more cake in it, like a super cake!
Although I just realized the Innate bonus progression for armor and weapons.... does nothing... literally nothing...
I didn't say any of those didn't exist, I'm saying that as people before me have as well, these items are a part of the progression. And again, you're stating alternative rules system, so it's a no go for PFS, which a solid amount of people use for this game.
It has? So players no longer feel the need to have:
Magic Weapon (weapon)
Magic Armor (armor)You don't think those two are just a wee bit overly broad? If not, may I present "the Big 14";
Magic Weapon (weapon)
Magic Armor (armor)
Magic Belt (belt)
Magic Overcloth (body)
Magic Shirt (chest)
Magic Eyewear (eyes)
Magic Footwear (feet)
Magic Gloves (hands)
Magic Headwear (head)
Magic Headband (headband)
Magic Neckwear (neck)
Magic Rings (rings)
Magic Shoulder padding (shoulders)
Magic Wristwear (wrists)
Perhaps I wasn't as specific as I could have been there. By magic weapon/armor, I meant numerical enhancements to them. A +1 to a weapon's attack and damage is worth more than 90% of all enhancements. Also I'm just stating the big 6 from the 3.0/3.5/PF perspective of the game. I didn't make the terminology, in fact, literally googling pathfinder big 6 magic items reveals the exact same thing I just said in case you wanted any additional evidence. So yeah, not sure why people are debating it when it's literally the first thing that comes up when you search it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So... Are they changing the item's name to "the Jingasa of the ripped off warrior, who should have bought a ring of protection instead"?
I only had 2 PFS characters with this item out of the 14. And it was kind of for the flavor of it. The 1/day crit or sneak attack negation was a nice trick, but it was mostly for the +1 luck bonus.
I think they could have just removed the daily part and called it a day. Maybe push up the price, but for +1 AC and CMD, 5K should be fine right?
The item's name doesn't make sense anymore. As Fortunate indicated the luck bonus.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh no theres a item that can be exploited to give a WHOLE +2 AC for ONLY 5k? Whatever shall we do? This is breaking the game!
We better nerf every other item that give +2 AC aswell! GET HE PITCHFORK BOYS!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No seriously, luck bonus to AC from an item was probably a bad idea from the start. It was a very common, exploited item.
Next they are going to have to nerf dodge because of that "cheap stackable bonus to AC"... :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You made up an argument that I never said, then you made an argument against that thing that I never said.
That's called a strawman.
My statement was that an item granting a cheap stackable bonus to AC is probably bad for game design. The backlash from the item being changed to deflection proves that is what people cared about.
No seriously, luck bonus to AC from an item was probably a bad idea from the start. It was a very common, exploited item.
I extrapolated your original argument (people exploiting Fate's Favored for Cheap/Easy Luck Bonus increases) to something that has occurred previously that happened in the same manner (people exploiting Master of Many Styles for quick and easy Crane Wing benefits) to demonstrate the similarities of the two situations I presented, because (at least from my perspective) they're basically the same thing.
It's not technically a strawman, since I made my answer in relation to what you said. I just answered your argument as if it were analogous; sorry if it didn't appear that way, as that was my intent.
Of course it's bad design to have an item extremely good become cheaply priced. Which is why I'm surprised they didn't go with the two smarter and easier solutions first: increase the price of the item (because they feel such an item at such a low price and character level was unintended), or remove Fate's Favored from the game (especially if it's as problematic as people claim).
@ Wonderstell: I reset the chain; to be honest, I blame the quoting formats, it does take up a lot of necessary replying space.
|
No no no. We can still comment on stupid rule changes (or weak/powerful items or whatever) whether we use the rule in our game or not, or whether the item is ever used or not.And for those of us that play PFS, we don't really have a choice of whether to adhere to the rules or not. So yeah, the PFS commands me, lol.
PFS is most of what I play, and I assure you, nothing there undercuts what I said (as a matter of fact, it richly rewards players who do more than just paint by numbers, even in spite of all its restrictions and comparative limitations).
Well not everybody plays this game to win.It's not about winning. It's about being able to accurately portray character concepts for whatever gaming that I see fit. And in a lot of people's minds, that is winning.
If I want to portray someone who is strong enough, extremely weak, or who specializes in X subject, but I cannot portray that level of power, or that type of character, then why would I use the system that doesn't get the job done?
I'm not trying to sit there and say "Optimize or Die" (though that is practically synonymous with how the game is currently designed, so it's not unfounded), all I'm saying is "Don't destroy my ability to portray characters who are powerful/weak or can accomplish X," a request that is infinitely more reasonable and widespread among all types of gamers.
This all sounds like stuff I agree with - but none of this should, or does, hinge on a single magic item (or trait, or feat, or class, or spell, etc).
Also, I DO play to win - but the kind of mentality that I railed against, and that people subsequently implied was about "playing to win," ISN'T one that "wins." In addition to destroying the game, it doesn't even achieve its own goal of "making the most powerful character" since everything has a price, and there's no way to be "optimized" for a game where anything's possible. It definitely seems to me that the characters made by those of us who don't believe the tenets of this new "Church of Gaming" (founded circa 2007, then rose to the fore circa 2012) wind up making much more functional characters than those who do - it does a lot to make one conclude that this "Church's" whole way of thinking about the game, for all its seemingly persuasive on-paper arguments, is fundamentally wrong.
Shrivel the game down until there are only a few possibilities to worry about? Then it might be doable - but in addition to most of us NOT wanting to play such an impoverished game, consider how the endless cycles of attempting to "balance" World of Warcraft never made anybody truly satisfied, just made everything worse the more things were messed with, and the forums rang night and day with the screams of bean-counters shoving their 5th-grade pre-algebra into each others' faces and all insisting how they alone had "objective proof" that everyone who disagreed with them about who was too weak/too strong that month was WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG!
That game was fun, once - but then came...The Bag of Hammers Clan (and that unforgivable insult of an NPC whose name I shall not repeat - you made such a beautiful world, Blizzard, why did you have to s$*! on your own art until you chased off your own core clientele???).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So I guess I'm the only one who survives without the big six. I'm trying to feel for the errata complaints because these things are are needed a little too hard but honestly I've never even heard of most of these items in game so I have no real concept as to how terrible this is. Especially since I don't really go gold digging for good items unless I'm a GM looking for random cool things for the players to rob from an NPC.
The item's name doesn't make sense anymore. As Fortunate indicated the luck bonus.And negating a deathblow isn't fortunate?
Sure it is.
And then whatever fortune you had left ran out at that moment. Sounds like you aren't so lucky after that point.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That being said, the purpose of this thread was not to complain. It was to look for other options now that it is gone.
Craft your own item with a Luck bonus.
DISCLAIMER: This thread is currently in the Advice forum, not a PFS-specific forum
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The item's name doesn't make sense anymore. As Fortunate indicated the luck bonus.And negating a deathblow isn't fortunate?Sure it is.
And then whatever fortune you had left ran out at that moment. Sounds like you aren't so lucky after that point.
You survived. You're lucky.
Arguing that the name is wrong because the ability is 1 use only now is just petty and asinine.
The item's name doesn't make sense anymore. As Fortunate indicated the luck bonus.And negating a deathblow isn't fortunate?Sure it is.
And then whatever fortune you had left ran out at that moment. Sounds like you aren't so lucky after that point.
You survived. You're lucky.
Arguing that the name is wrong because the ability is 1 use only now is just petty and asinine.
It'd still be more cost effective to put 1,000 of that 5,000 gold spent aside for a Reincarnate spell, and leave yourself with 4,000 gold to spend on more important things that actually work.
Hell, even setting that 5,000 gold aside for a Raise Dead would be more cost-effective, and that's saying something...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The item's name doesn't make sense anymore. As Fortunate indicated the luck bonus.And negating a deathblow isn't fortunate?
Slightly lucky once hat?
The item's name doesn't make sense anymore. As Fortunate indicated the luck bonus.And negating a deathblow isn't fortunate?Sure it is.
And then whatever fortune you had left ran out at that moment. Sounds like you aren't so lucky after that point.
You survived. You're lucky.
Arguing that the name is wrong because the ability is 1 use only now is just petty and asinine.
Pretty sure the name had more to do with the Luck bonus, which is now Deflection. I can see that the fortunate part also applied to the 1/day ability, but now it's a once off trick. Unless Fortunate now means that the soldier used to have a fortune, before wasting gold on this item. :P
Id rather save my gold for a snakeskin tunic now. Costs 3K more, but gives 1 armor AC, +2 dex and +2 resistance bonus on poison saves. On that note a +2 Ring of Protection also costs 3K more.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Slightly lucky once hat?The item's name doesn't make sense anymore. As Fortunate indicated the luck bonus.And negating a deathblow isn't fortunate?
Pointy hat of a keeping your head once?
|
|
The item's name doesn't make sense anymore. As Fortunate indicated the luck bonus.And negating a deathblow isn't fortunate?Sure it is.
And then whatever fortune you had left ran out at that moment. Sounds like you aren't so lucky after that point.
You survived. You're lucky.
Arguing that the name is wrong because the ability is 1 use only now is just petty and asinine.
It'd still be more cost effective to put 1,000 of that 5,000 gold spent aside for a Reincarnate spell, and leave yourself with 4,000 gold to spend on more important things that actually work.
Hell, even setting that 5,000 gold aside for a Raise Dead would be more cost-effective, and that's saying something...
To hell with Reincarnation! I like my body. It's mine. Silly Druids...
And it'd be 7K for Raise Dead and the 2 Restorations, plus more if you get them in scroll format or have an NPC cast on them.
Both of those "cost effective" options also take your character out of the game until said options can be reached, whereas the Jingasa keeps you in with no loss of playtime on your end.
And neither of which has anything to do with the name "fortunate".
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
On a positive note, fewer characters are going to look silly now.
On a positive note, fewer characters are going to look silly now.
True story. None of my dwarves bought this item, specifically because it looks silly. :)
The item's name doesn't make sense anymore. As Fortunate indicated the luck bonus.And negating a deathblow isn't fortunate?Sure it is.
And then whatever fortune you had left ran out at that moment. Sounds like you aren't so lucky after that point.
You survived. You're lucky.
Arguing that the name is wrong because the ability is 1 use only now is just petty and asinine.
It'd still be more cost effective to put 1,000 of that 5,000 gold spent aside for a Reincarnate spell, and leave yourself with 4,000 gold to spend on more important things that actually work.
Hell, even setting that 5,000 gold aside for a Raise Dead would be more cost-effective, and that's saying something...
I'd rather take a lesser talisman of Life's Breath that will res me than a one use only, negate a critical.
|
|
I'd rather take a lesser talisman of Life's Breath that will res me than a one use only, negate a critical.The item's name doesn't make sense anymore. As Fortunate indicated the luck bonus.And negating a deathblow isn't fortunate?Sure it is.
And then whatever fortune you had left ran out at that moment. Sounds like you aren't so lucky after that point.
You survived. You're lucky.
Arguing that the name is wrong because the ability is 1 use only now is just petty and asinine.
It'd still be more cost effective to put 1,000 of that 5,000 gold spent aside for a Reincarnate spell, and leave yourself with 4,000 gold to spend on more important things that actually work.
Hell, even setting that 5,000 gold aside for a Raise Dead would be more cost-effective, and that's saying something...
The Talisman are one use only as well, and also require you to actually die. Meaning you fall, ending whatever other effects you had on you, and then have to spend your next full action picking up your stuff and standing up.
The Talisman are one use only as well, and also require you to actually die. Meaning you fall, ending whatever other effects you had on you, and then have to spend your next full action picking up your stuff and standing up.I'd rather take a lesser talisman of Life's Breath that will res me than a one use only, negate a critical.The item's name doesn't make sense anymore. As Fortunate indicated the luck bonus.And negating a deathblow isn't fortunate?Sure it is.
And then whatever fortune you had left ran out at that moment. Sounds like you aren't so lucky after that point.
You survived. You're lucky.
Arguing that the name is wrong because the ability is 1 use only now is just petty and asinine.
It'd still be more cost effective to put 1,000 of that 5,000 gold spent aside for a Reincarnate spell, and leave yourself with 4,000 gold to spend on more important things that actually work.
Hell, even setting that 5,000 gold aside for a Raise Dead would be more cost-effective, and that's saying something...
How often are you to die to a critical? Because the strength of a critical and the frequency of a critical have an inverse relationship: either you do tons more bonus damage, or you do them more often.
If I may speak on crit deaths there have been 5 PC deaths at my table. One was during a battle where it was intended for an oracle to go mythic and cast miracle with finger of death, one was because a wizard was an idiot and took 10 attacks from a massive demon. The rest were crits from x3 weapons.
Under what timeframe did these crit deaths take place?
Under what timeframe did these crit deaths take place?
All were within the span of a year and our table has rather...easy GMs for lack of a better word. Basically my point is aside from our players making a huge judgment error or curbstomp enemies, x3 crits are the only thing that actually kill our PCs. They get knocked out by a lot of things, but those are the only things that outright kill them.