|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So am I the only one with more than 25 PCs that isn't affected at all by this new FAQ?
I guess it's because my only animal companion will never be bigger than medium. And I never bother with masterwork on cold iron weapons, since I only carry them as backups and never plan to enchant them.
Actually, I'll have to check the AC's armor. That one might be affected, despite being so small, if the masterwork cost has to be doubled. I think I can afford the extra 150 gp.
You don't have to have a character affected to care about jacked up rules.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For the context of PFS, It seems very reasonable to allow this FAQ to take effect after GenCon. That way people will have a month to make the appropriate changes to their characters (and give PFS leadership a month to announce how it will be enforced), and will allow GenCon GMs not to have to enforce something that's obviously (given this thread) hard to swallow.
Few things are worse than a GM that's unhappy to be telling you something.
Outside of that, some of the wording does need to be touched up, as others have said, as it stands it contradicts CRB text. Unless that's the case, in which case further clarification is warranted.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You don't have to have a character affected to care about jacked up rules.So am I the only one with more than 25 PCs that isn't affected at all by this new FAQ?
I guess it's because my only animal companion will never be bigger than medium. And I never bother with masterwork on cold iron weapons, since I only carry them as backups and never plan to enchant them.
Actually, I'll have to check the AC's armor. That one might be affected, despite being so small, if the masterwork cost has to be doubled. I think I can afford the extra 150 gp.
This is true. However, you don't have to be affected to validly think this rule is valid either.
|
|
Fromper, I am with you on this. My only character that is affected by it is my -1 and maybe a total of 450gp for large +1 studded for my battle kitten.
I thought this was pathfinder not "Pimp My Pet"
EDIT: Another thing, in reference to buying tiny armor and then enhancement for fitting. In the CRB, tiny armor has their armor bonus divided by 2 . So, it may not work as theorized, since armor growing larger does not increase it's armor bonus.
By that logic you could by medium fitting armor and put it on tje familiar for full ac
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By that logic you could by medium fitting armor and put it on tje familiar for full acFromper, I am with you on this. My only character that is affected by it is my -1 and maybe a total of 450gp for large +1 studded for my battle kitten.
I thought this was pathfinder not "Pimp My Pet"
EDIT: Another thing, in reference to buying tiny armor and then enhancement for fitting. In the CRB, tiny armor has their armor bonus divided by 2 . So, it may not work as theorized, since armor growing larger does not increase it's armor bonus.
Yeah, pretty sure it's whatever size the armor currently is. If you're small and reduce person now the AC gets cut in half. If you're tiny and enlarged the AC would go to normal. Same with fitting armor.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So am I the only one with more than 25 PCs that isn't affected at all by this new FAQ?
I guess it's because my only animal companion will never be bigger than medium. And I never bother with masterwork on cold iron weapons, since I only carry them as backups and never plan to enchant them.
Actually, I'll have to check the AC's armor. That one might be affected, despite being so small, if the masterwork cost has to be doubled. I think I can afford the extra 150 gp.
I have no PCs affected by this. (I think. There might be something masterwork and cold iron in there. I probably also have to think about whether the durable adamantine arrows are done right.)
My very strong objection to this ruling is more or less what Hmm said in the Petition thread; it's a change that takes something simple and makes it complicated, for not enough return. It adds a lot of confusion, because there are several examples in the CRB and elsewhere that contradict it.
I'm finding myself increasingly oppressed by the 10-foot-tall Jenga tower that the Pathfinder rules set is. When something like this comes out that will only add confusion (by putting on the FAQ something that is different from what you'd get out of paying attention to the examples in the CRB or the text in UE), it just makes the fiddily and complicated and difficult-to-get-right nature of the Pathfinder rules set that much worse. I don't like to see these kinds of changes happen.
|
You don't have to have a character affected to care about jacked up rules.So am I the only one with more than 25 PCs that isn't affected at all by this new FAQ?
I guess it's because my only animal companion will never be bigger than medium. And I never bother with masterwork on cold iron weapons, since I only carry them as backups and never plan to enchant them.
Actually, I'll have to check the AC's armor. That one might be affected, despite being so small, if the masterwork cost has to be doubled. I think I can afford the extra 150 gp.
I never said I didn't care. I'm following the conversation. I was just surprised to see that this affects so many people directly, when I have a ton of PCs, but I'm not impacted. As I said, it's probably because I've never done a large (or larger) animal companion or mount.
|
|
So am I the only one with more than 25 PCs that isn't affected at all by this new FAQ?
I guess it's because my only animal companion will never be bigger than medium. And I never bother with masterwork on cold iron weapons, since I only carry them as backups and never plan to enchant them.
Actually, I'll have to check the AC's armor. That one might be affected, despite being so small, if the masterwork cost has to be doubled. I think I can afford the extra 150 gp.
I have no PCs affected by this. (I think. There might be something masterwork and cold iron in there. I probably also have to think about whether the durable adamantine arrows are done right.)
My very strong objection to this ruling is more or less what Hmm said in the Petition thread; it's a change that takes something simple and makes it complicated, for not enough return. It adds a lot of confusion, because there are several examples in the CRB and elsewhere that contradict it.
I'm finding myself increasingly oppressed by the 10-foot-tall Jenga tower that the Pathfinder rules set is. When something like this comes out that will only add confusion (by putting on the FAQ something that is different from what you'd get out of paying attention to the examples in the CRB or the text in UE), it just makes the fiddily and complicated and difficult-to-get-right nature of the Pathfinder rules set that much worse. I don't like to see these kinds of changes happen.
The parts of the FAQ that directly conflict with existing rules, I agree with you on (i.e. Masterwork and Cold Iron).
however, the rest of the FAQ is not more confusing. It just explains order of operations when you do your math is all.
|
|
I put something along these lines in the other thread, but just to rephrase here...
I am in support of delaying any implementation of this FAQ in PFS until after Gencon. It's obviously got a broad impact, and this close to the convention, it's likely that many players will show up completely unaware of the FAQ. A strong statement from campaign leadership to all of the Gencon GMs informing them to not make players recalculate their characters at the convention would, to me, help avoid lost time at a packed convention and inconsistent enforcement of the FAQ.
For the FAQ itself, I think that how cold iron interacts with it needs to be clarified. It's entirely possible, as has been mentioned, that cold iron weapons are not affected at all by the FAQ, because the specific language in the Core Rulebook overrides the general FAQ. It's unclear whether that is the case right now, so clarity on that would be good.
I also think it would be good to get clarity on whether or not this impacts the cost of enhancing items. I'm fairly sure the answer is no, but there have already been people reading that it does, and again, consistency in how this is rolled out seems important.
I support the PDT examining the issue again, but I expect that they won't change their mind on the basic nature of the FAQ, and that the cost of special materials will continue to be multiplied. I'm hopeful that masterwork will be removed from that, to remain consistent with the examples in the books.
I empathize with all those impacted by this. I am not (aside, maybe, from one or two masterwork cold iron items), but I know how I would feel if an item I bought suddenly became vastly more expensive. In fact, I've felt that with the Mask of Stony Demeanor, though that was a much smaller increase relative to what some characters are facing.
|
|
I put something along these lines in the other thread, but just to rephrase here...
I am in support of delaying any implementation of this FAQ in PFS until after Gencon. It's obviously got a broad impact, and this close to the convention, it's likely that many players will show up completely unaware of the FAQ. A strong statement from campaign leadership to all of the Gencon GMs informing them to not make players recalculate their characters at the convention would, to me, help avoid lost time at a packed convention and inconsistent enforcement of the FAQ.
For the FAQ itself, I think that how cold iron interacts with it needs to be clarified. It's entirely possible, as has been mentioned, that cold iron weapons are not affected at all by the FAQ, because the specific language in the Core Rulebook overrides the general FAQ. It's unclear whether that is the case right now, so clarity on that would be good.
I also think it would be good to get clarity on whether or not this impacts the cost of enhancing items. I'm fairly sure the answer is no, but there have already been people reading that it does, and again, consistency in how this is rolled out seems important.
I support the PDT examining the issue again, but I expect that they won't change their mind on the basic nature of the FAQ, and that the cost of special materials will continue to be multiplied. I'm hopeful that masterwork will be removed from that, to remain consistent with the examples in the books.
I empathize with all those impacted by this. I am not (aside, maybe, from one or two masterwork cold iron items), but I know how I would feel if an item I bought suddenly became vastly more expensive. In fact, I've felt that with the Mask of Stony Demeanor, though that was a much smaller increase relative to what some characters are facing.
I agree that holding off implementation of the FAQ into PFS until its been clarified is a good idea.
However, as long as the FAQ is solidly clarified with rules for how its implemented into PFS happens prior to the Friday before Gen Con, I don't think it should wait at all. I'd be willing to concede to the Friday a week before the Friday before Gen Con. This gives all the VO's a chance to warn their constituents of the change. Something that if they are not doing, they are shirking their duties.
All that being said, I fully support the FAQ multiplying the special material costs. I do not support the FAQ multiplying masterwork quality. I also do not support the FAQ changing how Cold Iron works without indicating it is also errata.
Venture-Lieutenant, Maryland—Hagerstown
|
Yeah, pretty sure it's whatever size the armor currently is. If you're small and reduce person now the AC gets cut in half. If you're tiny and enlarged the AC would go to normal. Same with fitting armor.By that logic you could by medium fitting armor and put it on tje familiar for full acFromper, I am with you on this. My only character that is affected by it is my -1 and maybe a total of 450gp for large +1 studded for my battle kitten.
I thought this was pathfinder not "Pimp My Pet"
EDIT: Another thing, in reference to buying tiny armor and then enhancement for fitting. In the CRB, tiny armor has their armor bonus divided by 2 . So, it may not work as theorized, since armor growing larger does not increase it's armor bonus.
Makes sense, I wasn't sure. I just noticed it since I have been looking at that chapter a lot closer lately due to the fact.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Minnesota—Minneapolis
|
Except they changed the rules for Pathfinder multiplication, didn't they?
a Large masterwork cold iron greatsword costs 500 gp (50 gp for a greatsword, doubled for cold iron, doubled again for a Large weapon, then adding masterwork last because cold iron isn't always masterwork
The base price is 50. Doubling it twice in Pathfinder math should give 150 plus masterwork should be 450 gp, shouldn't it?
I'm going off the normal definition of multiplication and assuming doubling is considered multiplication.
|
|
Except they changed the rules for Pathfinder multiplication, didn't they?
a Large masterwork cold iron greatsword costs 500 gp (50 gp for a greatsword, doubled for cold iron, doubled again for a Large weapon, then adding masterwork last because cold iron isn't always masterworkThe base price is 50. Doubling it twice in Pathfinder math should give 150 plus masterwork should be 450 gp, shouldn't it?
I'm going off the normal definition of multiplication and assuming doubling is considered multiplication.
That is only for crit multiplication. Everything else, like pricing, uses normal math rules.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Minnesota—Minneapolis
|
I'm going off the normal definition of multiplication and assuming doubling is considered multiplication.That is only for crit multiplication. Everything else, like pricing, uses normal math rules.
Decided to go look it up.
Multiplying: When you are asked to apply more than one multiplier to a roll, the multipliers are not multiplied by one another. Instead, you combine them into a single multiplier, with each extra multiple adding 1 less than its value to the first multiple. For example, if you are asked to apply a ×2 multiplier twice, the result would be ×3, not ×4.
I had remembered it being in common terms. I hadn't remembered the part about it only applying to a roll.
It seems the definition applys to anything that you roll for. I can't think of anything other than crits that this would apply to, but in theory it isn't restricted to just crits.
Are there any multipliers in crafting? You would roll for that.
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
I'm going off the normal definition of multiplication and assuming doubling is considered multiplication.That is only for crit multiplication. Everything else, like pricing, uses normal math rules.
Decided to go look it up.
Multiplying: When you are asked to apply more than one multiplier to a roll, the multipliers are not multiplied by one another. Instead, you combine them into a single multiplier, with each extra multiple adding 1 less than its value to the first multiple. For example, if you are asked to apply a ×2 multiplier twice, the result would be ×3, not ×4.I had remembered it being in common terms. I hadn't remembered the part about it only applying to a roll.
It seems the definition applys to anything that you roll for. I can't think of anything other than crits that this would apply to, but in theory it isn't restricted to just crits.
Are there any multipliers in crafting? You would roll for that.
Except that it *isn't* x2 for Large, x4 for huge, x2 for non humanoid.
There is an explicit chart.
Size ----- Humanoid --- Non Humanoid
Medium --- x1 --------- x2
Large ---- x2 --------- x4
Huge ----- x4 --------- x8.
(And so on.)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't support the FAQ, but it looks like I have no choice but to accept it in PFS (I already tossed the FAQ out of the window for my homegames).
Yes I have a character affected by this, I can't even afford the armor I have on my mammoth rider anymore. I neither have enough gold nor enough fame, but it's not just that. (I'll just go for a normal material magic armor, which will give my animal companion even more AC if the Fitting enchantment is also crushed).
Realism aside, this just screws wealth by level special material options for anything non small/medium humanoid.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Realism aside, this just screws wealth by level special material options for anything non small/medium humanoid.
I think that's the point.
All the arguing and discussing aside, I get how when a rule is interpreted a certain way by a large portion of the player/gm base for a long time, that its painful when a clarification comes down that significantly affects your build choices. Its not easy. So believe me, I feel for your pain.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why is everyone so sure that Fitting is going to be effected in some way?Check Mr. Compton's posts at the start of the thread.
As for the fitting enchantment, I'm looking at what has been a fairly innocuous armor special ability and seeing a very inexpensive backdoor to circumvent the FAQ and design team altogether. That doesn't strike me as right, and it makes me seriously question whether that special ability (entirely sound when published) remains a good fit for the campaign.
Gotchya.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the simplest way to handle Fitting in organized play is just to say that it can't be applied to armor that starts at Tiny or smaller. That avoids the material multiplier discount while still keeping Fitting functioning as it has in the past.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the simplest way to handle Fitting in organized play is just to say that it can't be applied to armor that starts at Tiny or smaller. That avoids the material multiplier discount while still keeping Fitting functioning as it has in the past.
I would get behind this solution.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Maryland—Hagerstown
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the simplest way to handle Fitting in organized play is just to say that it can't be applied to armor that starts at Tiny or smaller. That avoids the material multiplier discount while still keeping Fitting functioning as it has in the past.
A restriction is definitely better than a full out ban. Hopefully Mr. Compton considers it.
|
|
I think the simplest way to handle Fitting in organized play is just to say that it can't be applied to armor that starts at Tiny or smaller. That avoids the material multiplier discount while still keeping Fitting functioning as it has in the past.
Then it becomes a cost saver to anyone with a large companion, going around the faq, which they don't want.
|
|
I think the simplest way to handle Fitting in organized play is just to say that it can't be applied to armor that starts at Tiny or smaller. That avoids the material multiplier discount while still keeping Fitting functioning as it has in the past.Then it becomes a cost saver to anyone with a large companion, going around the faq, which they don't want.
Except it means they'd have to put the armor on from when it wasn't in use, right? Or is Fitting fitting fit permanent fit?
Round 1: "Okay, putting on the mithril barding. Get back to me in ten rounds for the hasty don."
|
|
I think the simplest way to handle Fitting in organized play is just to say that it can't be applied to armor that starts at Tiny or smaller. That avoids the material multiplier discount while still keeping Fitting functioning as it has in the past.Then it becomes a cost saver to anyone with a large companion, going around the faq, which they don't want.Except it means they'd have to put the armor on from when it wasn't in use, right? Or is Fitting fitting fit permanent fit?
Round 1: "Okay, putting on the mithril barding. Get back to me in ten rounds for the hasty don."
Do you always put your armor on right when combat starts?
I think the simplest way to handle Fitting in organized play is just to say that it can't be applied to armor that starts at Tiny or smaller. That avoids the material multiplier discount while still keeping Fitting functioning as it has in the past.Then it becomes a cost saver to anyone with a large companion, going around the faq, which they don't want.Except it means they'd have to put the armor on from when it wasn't in use, right? Or is Fitting fitting fit permanent fit?
Round 1: "Okay, putting on the mithril barding. Get back to me in ten rounds for the hasty don."
Assume restful would be put on it and just sleep in the armor.
|
|
Up thread:
Does it make sense to make a Campaign Clarification that the Fitting property can only be placed on armor appropriately sized for the size of your base form, or that of your current companion? I doubt we're going to see weird corner cases of "I got myself an imp familiar for cheaper armor."
This shouldn't adversely affect either of the cases that BNW brings up
That's approximately what I'm thinking right now.
Well that would limit it to what Druids who use multiple sizes that could wear the same armor then?
|
|
Well that would limit it to what Druids who use multiple sizes that could wear the same armor then?
Also in theory if you were able to afford the fitting armor while your AC was still small/medium it would be able to grow with them to medium/large or bigger.
And doesn't a druid's armor shape change/meld with them already?
|
|
I'm going off the normal definition of multiplication and assuming doubling is considered multiplication.That is only for crit multiplication. Everything else, like pricing, uses normal math rules.
Decided to go look it up.
Multiplying: When you are asked to apply more than one multiplier to a roll, the multipliers are not multiplied by one another. Instead, you combine them into a single multiplier, with each extra multiple adding 1 less than its value to the first multiple. For example, if you are asked to apply a ×2 multiplier twice, the result would be ×3, not ×4.I had remembered it being in common terms. I hadn't remembered the part about it only applying to a roll.
It seems the definition applys to anything that you roll for. I can't think of anything other than crits that this would apply to, but in theory it isn't restricted to just crits.
Are there any multipliers in crafting? You would roll for that.
Slightly off topic, but you have to understand the reason behind the damage multiplier stacking rule.
Quick short hand:
BWD - Base Weapon Damage;
CHDB - Charge Damage Bonus, expressed as a value equal to BWD;
CDB - Critical Weapon Damage, expressed as a value equal to BWD;
Lets take a common case, mounted charging with a lance, and getting a crit. The charging lance is 2x, the crit is 3x. but what these represent aren't multipliers, nor are they total damage.
The 2x charge represents 1x BWD, and 1x CHDB. From a balance standpoint, you are only supposed to be getting 1x Weapon damage as a bonus from the charge.
On a crit (no mounted charge), a lance does 3x damage, representing 1x BWD, and 2x CDB. From a balance standpoint, you are meant to get 2x Weapon damage as a bonus from the crit.
So on a mounted Charge Crit, instead of 2x3=6x BWD, or 2+3=5x BWD, you get 1xBWD + 1xCHDB + 2xCDB = 4xBWD.
I assume this same rational would apply to crafting multipliers, if any.
|
|
And doesn't a druid's armor shape change/meld with them already?
It melds automatically, rendering it useless.
Given how late in the game wild armor comes on (and how ridiculously expensive it is) druids local 704 recommends tying a note and a bag of gold around your neck and heading to the (now ridiculously lucrative) armory and getting barding made for your favorite combat form. A tap from a wand of mage armor wouldn't hurt, just in case you need to pop into air elemental form to fly or something.
|
|
And doesn't a druid's armor shape change/meld with them already?
It melds automatically, rendering it useless.
Given how late in the game wild armor comes on (and how ridiculously expensive it is) druids local 704 recommends tying a note and a bag of gold around your neck and heading to the (now ridiculously lucrative) armory and getting barding made for your favorite combat form. A tap from a wand of mage armor wouldn't hurt, just in case you need to pop into air elemental form to fly or something.
Oh, okay, yeah for if they only equip the armor while in their beast shape and then only use creatures of approximately the same shape as they progress in levels, like the different types of cats. Kinda like if they themselves were the AC. Got it, thank you.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East
|
I think the simplest way to handle Fitting in organized play is just to say that it can't be applied to armor that starts at Tiny or smaller. That avoids the material multiplier discount while still keeping Fitting functioning as it has in the past.Then it becomes a cost saver to anyone with a large companion, going around the faq, which they don't want.
Only to a degree. You would still have to pay the barding multiplier because it's an odd shape. Fitting would only help if the companion itself changes size, such as when it hits its growth spurt at level 4 or 7.
|
|
Only to a degree. You would still have to pay the barding multiplier because it's an odd shape. Fitting would only help if the companion itself changes size, such as when it hits its growth spurt at level 4 or 7.
Currently you can buy +1 fitting mithral kitten armor and then put it on your large tiger. Fitting with the faq winds up being a discount when the current FAQ is trying to jack up the price: which is why fitting is getting the hairy eyeball.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East
|
Currently you can buy +1 fitting mithral kitten armor and then put it on your large tiger. Fitting with the faq winds up being a discount when the current FAQ is trying to jack up the price: which is why fitting is getting the hairy eyeball.
Only to a degree. You would still have to pay the barding multiplier because it's an odd shape. Fitting would only help if the companion itself changes size, such as when it hits its growth spurt at level 4 or 7.
Your price is going up no matter what you do.
So, I looked at some numbers on this. For mithral light barding (chain shirt), small fitting only saves 200gp from large. Not really worth being cheesy. Either way, you're paying about 2.2x the old cost.
Medium barding it starts to make a difference. Large Kikko is now 3x the old cost, and small fitting kikko is 1.9x the old cost. Large Agile Breastplate is about the same difference. Going heavy, full plate isn't much different: Large is at 3.2x and small fit is 1.8x.
|
That's approximately what I'm thinking right now.Does it make sense to make a Campaign Clarification that the Fitting property can only be placed on armor appropriately sized for the size of your base form, or that of your current companion? I doubt we're going to see weird corner cases of "I got myself an imp familiar for cheaper armor."
This shouldn't adversely affect either of the cases that BNW brings up
Isn't limiting the Fitting property to your current companion punishing players whose animal companions are already "grown up" and large in size?
It forces the Fitting property to be a "tax" item, that must be purchased for an animal companion BEFORE say companion grows up in size.
As well as being very unfair to players with large sized animal companions.