Farewell, Jingasa.


Advice

151 to 165 of 165 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Ravingdork wrote:
James Risner wrote:
The problem with the luck ac bonus was that a fighter could use it to get AC 36 by level 7 and 24,000 gp.
And this is a problem over the fighter who has AC 35 by level 7 how?

As troublesome as dodge or a Dusty Rose Prism is...


graystone wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
James Risner wrote:
The problem with the luck ac bonus was that a fighter could use it to get AC 36 by level 7 and 24,000 gp.
And this is a problem over the fighter who has AC 35 by level 7 how?
As troublesome as dodge or a Dusty Rose Prism is...

Dodge Bonuses rarely (if ever) come from items.

I think the idea is having both Insight and Luck available at the same time for the same low-cost and then you add things like Dodge after, you end up with problems.

The Jingasa opens the door for this kind of bonus stacking by existing. By changing it they are pretty much telling us that they won't be giving us items like this anymore because too many people are abusing it in PFS. At least that's how I'm interpreting.

Shadow Lodge

The Bracelet of Second Chances is hands down the best replacement for the critical-negating portion of the Jingasa.

It's pricey (at 15,750gp on a wrist item), but rightfully so.


master_marshmallow wrote:
graystone wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
James Risner wrote:
The problem with the luck ac bonus was that a fighter could use it to get AC 36 by level 7 and 24,000 gp.
And this is a problem over the fighter who has AC 35 by level 7 how?
As troublesome as dodge or a Dusty Rose Prism is...

Dodge Bonuses rarely (if ever) come from items.

I think the idea is having both Insight and Luck available at the same time for the same low-cost and then you add things like Dodge after, you end up with problems.

The Jingasa opens the door for this kind of bonus stacking by existing. By changing it they are pretty much telling us that they won't be giving us items like this anymore because too many people are abusing it in PFS. At least that's how I'm interpreting.

If this is the case, then they are going to have to errata Ultimate Magic, that lists "Luck" as being able to affect "AC, attacks, checks, damage, saves" and the Core Rules that list "luck, insight, sacred, or profane" AC bonus as costing "Bonus squared × 2,500 gp"

Until then, they aren't really fixing anything... And PFS could always house-rule away anything that was "abusing it in PFS", so I don't see how this is targeted at the right place.

EDIT: I'm more inclined to think that it finally dawned on someone that a trait was doubling the AC bonus and since THAT book isn't up for reprint in the near feature, nerf what's in a book that's up for errata...

And on top of that, if the bonus was the only issue, why nuke the crit negation ability?


My 13th level Venture Captain just returned his Jingasa to the store and shelled out a large portion of his savings for a fancy blue hat. I have to say, I much preferred the aesthetic of the jingasa though...

I wonder if I can have the snake motif re-molded into Torag's hammer-symbol and/or have the blue leather-electrum ensemble replaced with a low cone like the jingasa he used to wear... After all, he's from Tian Xia, not Osirion...

That said, the comparative price of the Khepresh in probably indicative of why the nerf was deemed necessary. That and it saved a monk in my pbp game from death twice in as many in-game days so far, and we're not even a quarter way through...


Not that luck shouldn't be able to affect AC, but that purchasable luck is worth more, as a means of reducing impenetrable ACs.

Again, it's from feedback in the PFS world.

Fates Favored was valued more because this item existed. It's just less viable now.

Not that it isn't a very strong trait, but it's probably less trouble to change the item's effect rather than increase its price and have to replace its location I the random loot table and have to redo the whole table.


Ok, I keep seeing this silly "36 AC lv7 fighter" example thrown around, but I highly doubt such a build even exists let alone is the real reason for this errata.

Math of disbelief:
If I have this right, Dex 20 (+5), 23500gp of gear
11500 for +1 mithril full plate (+5 max dex assuming armor training 1)
_1180 for a +1 heavy shield
_2000 for +1 ring of prot
_2000 for +1 amulet of nat armor
_5000 dusty rose ioun stone
=19,680
and we're already almost at wbl and have only reached an ac of 31, so you'd have to somehow make up the extra +5 via feats. I can only see an extra +2 via dodge and shield focus. So, a 33 total. And less than 3000 gold for weapon, cloak of resistance, and everything else.

Assuming we're not going for an ultra dex build
dex 14 (+2)
5650 +2 full plate
4280 +2 tower shield
2000 ring of prot +1
2000 amulet o.n.a. +1
5000 dusty ioun
=18930, only ac 32 (34 with dodge and shield focus)and still not enough gold to buy the jingasa. In fact, only about 500gp more than the previous.

... seriously, what am I missing? If you use the jingasa and fate's favored instead of the ioun stone, you're still only at 35 max; and still down 2 feats and 2 ac from the target of the exercise.


I really don't see any reason that they should have nerfed the jingasa so hard, and found it a nice companion on the AC track to the dusty rose prism ioun stone. I would like to get a dev's opinion why this singular entry on the ac track (pretty much the only one not in the crb) needed to be rendered effectively useless.

Dark Archive

Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:
*math*

Assuming the player is just building for raw AC without concern for combat effectiveness, I could see this build on a small sized character using Combat Expertise. Add those with Dodge and Shield Focus, as you mentioned before, and I could see a character maybe reaching that number.

Who knows? Maybe it's a Cavalier build with an Adopted (Halfling) + Helpful + Bodyguard animal companion.

Dark Archive

Rosc wrote:
Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:
*math*

Assuming the player is just building for raw AC without concern for combat effectiveness, I could see this build on a small sized character using Combat Expertise. Add those with Dodge and Shield Focus, as you mentioned before, and I could see a character maybe reaching that number.

Who knows? Maybe it's a Multiclass Cavalier build with an Adopted (Halfling) + Helpful + Bodyguard animal companion.

Silver Crusade

I'm guessing they changed the AC type because of issues with the Pugwampi Union.

That's my theory and I'm sticking to it.


James Risner wrote:
Either you are trying to be funny or you don't know the item creation rules.

Try understanding the numbers you're looking at before you get all personal.

Eyes of the Eagle are a +5 competence bonus, not +3, and are permanent bonuses, not a temporary buff that's action-activated for one minute once per day.

The Pale Green Cracked Ioun Stone can be applied to attack bonuses or saving throws, *and* has a doubled price due to its slotless factor: Bracers of Falcon's Aim are not slotless, as they go on the wrists. Which are a slot. The Pale Green Cracked Ioun Stone is also an 'always on' bonus, and is not limited to being action-activated for one minute once per day.

Deliquescent (not Delinquent) gloves offer not only an ability equivalent to a +1 enhancement bonus - something that a mere +1 to attack does *not*, as it does not also increase damage - but it is also 'universal', granting this ability to multiple attack forms, compared to the strict restrictions on weapons in Bracers of Falcon's Aim (two subcategories vs any held weapon, natural attack or unarmed). ADDITIONALLY it also has a second function, which as you recall adds to the price of an item. It offers protection from slime counter-damage as well as preventing their splitting ability.

These effects are, of course, permanently active from the item being equipped, as opposed to being action-activated for one minute once per day.

At most one could argue the critical-booster effect of falcon's aim is what requires a repricing. However, even if such a cost adjustment were made, there is no question whatsoever that it would then be reduced significantly in cost, by sheer virtue of being action-activated as opposed to continuous, and limited to a single charge, once per day.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
What I'm bothered by is the ascent (which I was there to observe all of) of a narrow, ordered way of thinking and speaking that doesn't play well with anyone who doesn't speak and think their way, and winds up marginalizing the rest of us wherever it takes firm root because it demands understanding without extending any.

It's a response to tone that's been spun out into a one-man crusade, against straw min/maxers that get more ridiculous with each telling, for the soul of tabletop roleplaying.

Quote:
It's interesting (maybe even some kind of hopeful sign) that you agree with me about World of Warcraft, since that's where I first observed it taking shape, and saw it (as well as other issues that aren't necessarily cut from the same cloth) gradually ruin what had been a fun game environment.

I wasn't talking about the player base, cancerous as it is, just the setting and its writing. One other thing I forgot to mention is the reason WoW players are so obsessed with balance: They are in competition with each other all the time. If they are not competing directly in PvP, they are competing for raid slots, or for a bigger slice of the server economy, etc. These venues are the source of the best and/or most expensive gear, and an obsession with getting gear is the reason they're playing WoW in the first place. Imbalance there is an enormous source of frustration where it exists, and a ready-made excuse where it doesn't, so players will never stop whining about it and Blizzard will never stop tweaking it. All this is not to say balance doesn't matter in a cooperative game.

Quote:
You're getting it backwards: Character stats are just character stats, but the challenges you might face are literally limitless.

The limitless set of challenges are parsed down to a literally finite set of things your character can interact with mechanically. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a more fundamental definition of "RPG ruleset" than that.

Quote:
No, the point of an RPG rules set is to provide a sort of "UI" between the Land of the Living and a fantasy realm.

The ruleset is definitely not (just) the UI, a much better analogue would be its engine or source code. After all, the UI doesn't handle hit detection or damage calculations, it doesn't dictate where the player can move and how fast, and so on.

Quote:

If you're just going to shrivel it down to a math problem, you could go out and EARN money by counting cards in a casino. Yes, it doesn't entirely make sense; Why do we pick our hobbies? Why do any of us do just what we do? Trying to mathematically optimize one's life will not, in fact, get you the best result.

Math is a lot like money, actually; its very insubstantiality is precisely what makes it useful. It's a means to an end, not an end unto itself - and bad things happen when it's made into an end.

Math and money aren't ends in themselves, but it's never useful and usually harmful to insist that they don't matter. If I was involved in something as dangerous as adventuring, then you bet I would try to mathematically optimize my life. In a way, most people already do to some degree, even if they aren't thinking expressly in terms of numbers.

Quote:
And you're dredging up old interactions for the sake of superfluous disdainful remarks because...why? I know my problems, but what on Earth is yours?

Because 4th Edition is always brought up as the Godwin's Law of tabletop gaming, along the lines of "4e tried to be balanced and look what happened", and almost as common as the "go play an MMO" refrain in this tired roleplay vs rollplay argument.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Athaleon wrote:
If I was involved in something as dangerous as adventuring, then you bet I would try to mathematically optimize my life. In a way, most people already do to some degree, even if they aren't thinking expressly in terms of numbers.

Yeah, I'd definitely want the best gear I could get if my life depended on the quality of my equipment. I'd also want the best training/skills to help me survive the ridiculously dangerous adventurer life.

Scarab Sages

Chengar Qordath wrote:


Yeah, I'd definitely want the best gear I could get if my life depended on the quality of my equipment. I'd also want the best training/skills to help me survive the ridiculously dangerous adventurer life.

It's almost never as linear as "the best," though - everything has advantages and disadvantages. That's the way it's always been. There are MANY "right ways," not just one.

Athaleon wrote:


It's a response to tone that's been spun out into a one-man crusade, against straw min/maxers that get more ridiculous with each telling, for the soul of tabletop roleplaying.

Why should I try to understand what you're saying when you don't seem to be making any effort to reciprocate? Your attitude is one of arrogant disdain - would you care to tell me who taught you that was an okay way to behave?

Athaleon wrote:

The limitless set of challenges are parsed down to a literally finite set of things your character can interact with mechanically. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a more fundamental definition of "RPG ruleset" than that.

Do you at least realize we're speaking and thinking on drastically different levels?

Athaleon wrote:


The ruleset is definitely not (just) the UI, a much better analogue would be its engine or source code. After all, the UI doesn't handle hit detection or damage calculations, it doesn't dictate where the player can move and how fast, and so on.

No, the engine/source code would be the folklore/mythology/literature/other media of fantasy fiction that the game exists to put players in the starring role of. That's what it's about.

Athaleon wrote:


Math and money aren't ends in themselves, but it's never useful and usually harmful to insist that they don't matter.

Who ever said they don't matter? All I ever said was that their rightful role is subordinate rather than supreme, which is what you seem to be insisting on.

Athaleon wrote:


Because 4th Edition is always brought up as the Godwin's Law of tabletop gaming, along the lines of "4e tried to be balanced and look what happened", and almost as common as the "go play an MMO" refrain in this tired roleplay vs rollplay argument.

Who's the one with the tired argument? You reached completely out of this thread back to harp on something from months ago. I find your lack of self-awareness disturbing....

Community & Digital Content Director

Removed a few posts, responses to them, and closing this one as it's spiraled in a direction that's not totally Advice forum centric.

151 to 165 of 165 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Farewell, Jingasa. All Messageboards