Repercussions of July 18 armor pricing FAQ


Pathfinder Society

251 to 300 of 328 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
5/5 5/55/55/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
James Anderson wrote:


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.

If you're going to go cheese, go gouhda. Compare tiny armor, not small.

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

I'll just go ahead and say that I don't see this FAQ as raising the cost. I see it as affirming the way I already calculated it.

Generally speaking, if there are two equally valid ways to interpret a rule, the safest thing to do is to use the more expensive/restrictive interpretation. Then all your surprise rulings are happy surprises. If you choose to do otherwise, your disappointment is on you.

Venture-Agent, Utah—Provo aka Chess Pwn

pH unbalanced wrote:

I'll just go ahead and say that I don't see this FAQ as raising the cost. I see it as affirming the way I already calculated it.

Generally speaking, if there are two equally valid ways to interpret a rule, the safest thing to do is to use the more expensive/restrictive interpretation. Then all your surprise rulings are happy surprises. If you choose to do otherwise, your disappointment is on you.

I don't know, having had how many years of discounted gear vs not having the discounted gear ever? Seems like disappointment at time of FAQ could still be worth all the time beforehand that you benefited from the unclarity.

1/5

Secane wrote:
John Compton wrote:
Serisan wrote:

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.

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.

Seeing that the object of the exercise is to be a tax...

Shadow Lodge 5/5 5/55/5 Venture-Lieutenant, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East aka thistledown

BigNorseWolf wrote:
James Anderson wrote:


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.

If you're going to go cheese, go gouhda. Compare tiny armor, not small.

As this exchange began with your comment to my proposed fix, I did the comparison with the fix in place.

I am totally on board with not allowing Fitting on things that start Tiny or smaller.

Scarab Sages 5/5 5/5 Venture-Captain, Netherlands aka Woran

6 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
James Anderson wrote:


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.

If you're going to go cheese, go gouhda. Compare tiny armor, not small.

There is no H in Gouda.

Our dutch cheese is sophisticated.

5/5 5/55/55/5

4 people marked this as a favorite.
pH unbalanced wrote:

I'll just go ahead and say that I don't see this FAQ as raising the cost. I see it as affirming the way I already calculated it.

It makes absolutely no sense that a bar of mithral you're going to hammer into Horse armor costs twice as much as mithral you're going to hammer into person armor. No one has even attempted to explain that from a balance or sensible, or ANY position, at all.

At all.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Tineke Bolleman wrote:


There is no H in Gouda.
Our dutch cheese is sophisticated.

Given the questionable nature of the cheese involved i didn't want to run afoul of european food labeling laws, so called it Ghouda. Kind of like you have to call it "Froot loops" instead of "fruit loops" because the later implies there's fruit in the sugar.

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
pH unbalanced wrote:

I'll just go ahead and say that I don't see this FAQ as raising the cost. I see it as affirming the way I already calculated it.

Generally speaking, if there are two equally valid ways to interpret a rule, the safest thing to do is to use the more expensive/restrictive interpretation. Then all your surprise rulings are happy surprises. If you choose to do otherwise, your disappointment is on you.

Two things:

If this was how we were supposed to price things all along, then there should be no need to touch Fitting. Clearly it was designed with Special Material multiplication (and discounting) in mind.

Second, depending on what size your Companion is, the "more restrictive ruling" was that Special Materials weren't multiplied. This FAQ gives me money back on my Quasit's tiny-sized armor, for example.

I wouldn't equate the two possibilities as "equally valid ways to interpret a rule". One interpretation heavily skewed in the other direction.

Sovereign Court 3/5

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
pH unbalanced wrote:

I'll just go ahead and say that I don't see this FAQ as raising the cost. I see it as affirming the way I already calculated it.

It makes absolutely no sense that a bar of mithral you're going to hammer into Horse armor costs twice as much as mithral you're going to hammer into person armor. No one has even attempted to explain that from a balance or sensible, or ANY position, at all.

At all.

There is a lot of waste involved in crafting horse armor. You just can't do anything with all those mithral shavings left over. :/

*shakes head*

Sovereign Court 3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Nefreet wrote:
If this was how we were supposed to price things all along, then there should be no need to touch Fitting. Clearly it was designed with Special Material multiplication (and discounting) in mind.

I'm never sure those Player Companions get in-depth analysis.

Scarab Sages 5/5 5/5 Venture-Captain, Netherlands aka Woran

BigNorseWolf wrote:
pH unbalanced wrote:

I'll just go ahead and say that I don't see this FAQ as raising the cost. I see it as affirming the way I already calculated it.

It makes absolutely no sense that a bar of mithral you're going to hammer into Horse armor costs twice as much as mithral you're going to hammer into person armor. No one has even attempted to explain that from a balance or sensible, or ANY position, at all.

At all.

A lot of human sized armor can be made partially to a standard. Chain shirts especially. Certain pieces of plate are a one size fits all. As an armor smith, you can easily have basic pieces ready, and then have to expend less effort to make the person specific pieces.

Horses will need training to tolerate armor. A horse might never get used to certain pieces. (most take pieces on the lower leg just fine, but a lot of them get finniky when it comes to the belly). Also depending on your horse breed, their physical build can very greatly, needing a complete rework of a piece.

Its more or less the difference between pulling a suit of a rack in size M, VS having a suit tailor made.

(real life examples have limited application to fantasy worlds, I know)

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
KingOfAnything wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
If this was how we were supposed to price things all along, then there should be no need to touch Fitting. Clearly it was designed with Special Material multiplication (and discounting) in mind.
I'm never sure those Player Companions get in-depth analysis.

It's been admitted that they don't, which is one reason those options are more restricted in PFS.

But assuming this was how Special Materials were always supposed to be priced, where were the people decreeing a nerf back when it first became legal?

5/5 5/55/55/5

And that cost is already reflected in the X2 you paid on the base price. If blacksmith needs to go through four times as much metal to put that on a horse they should be canned. This gets Absolutely silly once you're at anything other than plate armor. Really? the horse is objecting to HALF of the individual chain links, which have to be thrown away because they touched a horse?

Literally.

If they can only get half the mithral on the horse , he should have enough left over for some human breastplates.

Sovereign Court 3/5

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:

And that cost is already reflected in the X2 you paid on the base price. If blacksmith needs to go through four times as much metal to put that on a horse they should be canned.

Literally.

If they can only get half the mithral on the horse , he should have enough left over for some human breastplates.

Assuming it's easily reusable.

Iron you can easily rework. People need iron. When's the blacksmith going to use that leftover chunk of mithral if it's even possible? When the next band of PCs rolls through town?

5/5 5/55/55/5

5 people marked this as a favorite.

The "Arguments" for doubling the price of the mithral are only digging me in deeper.

Must be this mithral shovel. Makes the work go faster. The blacksmith had a whole pile of them under the woodshed

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Society Subscriber

If I pay eight times as much for the material, I want eight times the benefits as well.

Shadow Lodge 5/5 5/55/5 Venture-Lieutenant, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East aka thistledown

3 people marked this as a favorite.

They go well with the mithral waffle iron.

Scarab Sages 5/5 5/5 Venture-Captain, Netherlands aka Woran

BigNorseWolf wrote:

And that cost is already reflected in the X2 you paid on the base price. If blacksmith needs to go through four times as much metal to put that on a horse they should be canned. This gets Absolutely silly once you're at anything other than plate armor. Really? the horse is objecting to HALF of the individual chain links, which have to be thrown away because they touched a horse?

Literally.

If they can only get half the mithral on the horse , he should have enough left over for some human breastplates.

You make a full set of horse armor. Horse decides its not going to tolerate a part of it. Owner of horse then does not want that part. You still make him pay full price because you did spend time making it.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Tineke Bolleman wrote:


Owner of horse then does not want that part.

... and throws out something worth it's weight in gold, instead of selling it?

Scarab Sages 5/5 5/5 Venture-Captain, Netherlands aka Woran

2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Tineke Bolleman wrote:


Owner of horse then does not want that part.

... and throws out something worth it's weight in gold, instead of selling it?

I'm not paying 500 GP for a used Horse codpiece.

5/5 5/55/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tineke Bolleman wrote:


I'm not paying 500 GP for a used Horse codpiece.

where do you think they get the mithral waffle irons?

Scarab Sages 5/5 5/5 Venture-Captain, Netherlands aka Woran

Happy halfling kitchen supplies?

I hope.

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
James Anderson wrote:
They go well with the mithral waffle iron.

Sorry =(

5/5 5/55/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tineke Bolleman wrote:

Happy halfling kitchen supplies?

and now you know why the halfling is so happy he's billing people twice for the same mithral.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

All I know is, I'm fascinated that the developers decided to screw with something that hasn't been a problem in the almost decade since the Core Rulebook was published, yet Alchemists can still solo scenarios and modules with an average build with nary an actual needed nerf in sight.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens Subscriber

paizo devs,
it's not to late to declare this a hoax and forget it ever happened.

Scarab Sages 3/5

RoshVagari, don't go bringing sense into this - did you forget where we are?

Shadow Lodge 5/5

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh hey, Rosh is back in PFS! Good to hear it.

Liberty's Edge 4/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16 aka Thrawn007

My simple solution to resizing armor would be to make that magical property not work with special materials.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
pH unbalanced wrote:

I'll just go ahead and say that I don't see this FAQ as raising the cost. I see it as affirming the way I already calculated it.

It makes absolutely no sense that a bar of mithral you're going to hammer into Horse armor costs twice as much as mithral you're going to hammer into person armor. No one has even attempted to explain that from a balance or sensible, or ANY position, at all.

At all.

Guild pricing.

The master craftsmen claim that it's additional material costs, and that special materials require special training, and all sorts of additional consumables to keep the adamantium from corroding, or becoming brittle and useless. But only other master craftsmen know for sure...and anyone with that sort of training is charging the exact same amount.

Whenever someone with less training or certification points out the amount of theoretical savings they could squeeze out of the materials, their friendly guild representative nods, whistles, and casually mentioned that that seems to be the right amount of money to hire a Red Mantis Assassin, and maybe they should think about running the numbers again.

And somehow, no one ever ends up breaking MSRP.

Edit: Or maybe it's Inquisitors of Abadar that work as enforcers? I kind of suspect that the price lists are Abadaran Holy Writ, and anyone who deviates from them is committing blasphemy of the worst kind.

Shadow Lodge

Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Thomas Hutchins wrote:
pH unbalanced wrote:

I'll just go ahead and say that I don't see this FAQ as raising the cost. I see it as affirming the way I already calculated it.

Generally speaking, if there are two equally valid ways to interpret a rule, the safest thing to do is to use the more expensive/restrictive interpretation. Then all your surprise rulings are happy surprises. If you choose to do otherwise, your disappointment is on you.

I don't know, having had how many years of discounted gear vs not having the discounted gear ever? Seems like disappointment at time of FAQ could still be worth all the time beforehand that you benefited from the unclarity.

You have just explained why I have never benefited from the big peaks in the stock market. On the other hand, I've never gotten burned in a crash, either.

5/5 5/55/55/5

ph Balanced wrote:
Edit: Or maybe it's Inquisitors of Abadar that work as enforcers? I kind of suspect that the price lists are Abadaran Holy Writ, and anyone who deviates from them is committing blasphemy of the worst kind.

We're really into Asmodeous territory here.


claudekennilol wrote:
John Compton wrote:
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.

Pretty hilarious that he calls it entirely sound when published, when it always allowed armor for large creatures to be bought on the cheap, even before the FAQrrata. Definitely not what I would describe as a sound or even well-designed ability.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

2 people marked this as a favorite.

If they get the same amount of AC from it, why should they pay more?

Sovereign Court 1/5

Lau Bannenberg wrote:

Here then is my compromise proposal:

Fitting can only be placed on Small or larger armor.

This would provide an upper bound on costs for plus-sized companion armor, but also prevent tiny fitting armor cheese.

This seems like a pretty reasonable compromise. Seconding this, or something like it.

The Concordance Venture-Agent, Utah—Logan aka ShieldLawrence

Any word on the future of fitting armor? Do I go ahead and retrain my armor into tiny fitting barding?

3/5

I guess I'm late to this party. One question: why was this FAQ necessary? I don't understand why the devs are changing something that seemed unbroken... did someone get mad at all those huge giants walking around with mithral fullplates?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM PDK wrote:
I guess I'm late to this party. One question: why was this FAQ necessary?

Because enough people asked.

GM PDK wrote:
I don't understand why the devs are changing something that seemed unbroken... did someone get mad at all those huge giants walking around with mithral fullplates?

Because it's not a change. There were two interpretations. Now we know which one to use.

3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Makes sense to me: bigger critters means bigger armor means more metal required.

Thanks GM TP!

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

ShieldLawrence wrote:
Any word on the future of fitting armor? Do I go ahead and retrain my armor into tiny fitting barding?

There's no news yet, I wouldn't expect it until after GenCon.

However, I wouldn't count on tiny fitting armor becoming a thing. I suspect leadership will choose to either ban fitting entirely, or allow it only on small+ armor. (I hope the second option is chosen.)

Grand Lodge

GM Tyrant Princess wrote:
GM PDK wrote:
I guess I'm late to this party. One question: why was this FAQ necessary?

Because enough people asked.

GM PDK wrote:
I don't understand why the devs are changing something that seemed unbroken... did someone get mad at all those huge giants walking around with mithral fullplates?
Because it's not a change. There were two interpretations. Now we know which one to use.

IIRC, it is sort of a change considering the vast majority of statted items (with very few, if any, outliers) were priced the opposite way.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

Errors like that are not uncommon, unfortunately. Look at all the "Spring Attack plus Vital Strike" tactics that have slipped into print over the years. And that's unambiguously incorrect, where this had multiple possible interpretations.

It's possible that even some developers weren't aware of this, since it's such a niche case. And if they were, it might have slipped by in the details of NPC design.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

Let's change "might" into "probably, lots of times". It was a long-standing vagueness, whenever those get cleared up there'll always be a lot of examples that are now wrong. No matter which direction you decide in.


pH unbalanced wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
pH unbalanced wrote:

I'll just go ahead and say that I don't see this FAQ as raising the cost. I see it as affirming the way I already calculated it.

It makes absolutely no sense that a bar of mithral you're going to hammer into Horse armor costs twice as much as mithral you're going to hammer into person armor. No one has even attempted to explain that from a balance or sensible, or ANY position, at all.

At all.

Guild pricing.

The master craftsmen claim that it's additional material costs, and that special materials require special training, and all sorts of additional consumables to keep the adamantium from corroding, or becoming brittle and useless. But only other master craftsmen know for sure...and anyone with that sort of training is charging the exact same amount.

Whenever someone with less training or certification points out the amount of theoretical savings they could squeeze out of the materials, their friendly guild representative nods, whistles, and casually mentioned that that seems to be the right amount of money to hire a Red Mantis Assassin, and maybe they should think about running the numbers again.

And somehow, no one ever ends up breaking MSRP.

Nope it actually clearly takes more. Otherwise a character with the right skills could mine, smelt, and craft the mithril for the armor and it still cost 1/3 the MSRP.

Silver Crusade 5/5

Jurassic Pratt wrote:
GM Tyrant Princess wrote:
GM PDK wrote:
I guess I'm late to this party. One question: why was this FAQ necessary?

Because enough people asked.

GM PDK wrote:
I don't understand why the devs are changing something that seemed unbroken... did someone get mad at all those huge giants walking around with mithral fullplates?
Because it's not a change. There were two interpretations. Now we know which one to use.
IIRC, it is sort of a change considering the vast majority of statted items (with very few, if any, outliers) were priced the opposite way.

several posters have pointed out published items that are done the "wrong" way - priced incorrectly (by the FAQ).

What items in published sources (prior to this FAQ) were priced CORRECTLY? so that we can have some examples of the "right way" to do this.

Shadow Lodge

Personally, I think the price should be related to the benefit, and while can see a case being made for larger items costing a little bit more just for size, (a few hundred gp max), I kind of think its rediculous how this is being handled.

3/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I now understand why all the giant art has them in loincloth, togas and bear-fur bikinis!

Scarab Sages 2/5

Ive pointed out before, and I will point it out again, any time someone says this makes sence due to "more material' being used or some such nonsense.

A large adamantine [light edged] weapon costs significantly more than a medium [one handed edged] weapon, but from a rules standpoint are equivalent weapons with the same statistics, with only the suitability of their grip being a concern. Adamantine pricing, based on small/medium pricing and the above comparison has nothing to do with the size of the item and everything to do with a really weird desire to punish those with the need or desire to use large sized equipment.

Dark Archive 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
burkoJames wrote:

Ive pointed out before, and I will point it out again, any time someone says this makes sence due to "more material' being used or some such nonsense.

A large adamantine [light edged] weapon costs significantly more than a medium [one handed edged] weapon, but from a rules standpoint are equivalent weapons with the same statistics, with only the suitability of their grip being a concern. Adamantine pricing, based on small/medium pricing and the above comparison has nothing to do with the size of the item and everything to do with a really weird desire to punish those with the need or desire to use large sized equipment.

and yet small sized equipment is not discounted in price right?

I mean, my (small) Cold Iron Bastard Sword costs the same thing as a Human sized (medium) Cold Iron Bastard Sword - even though it weighs half as much...

and come to think of it, why do I have to pay the same cost for trail rations - even though my (small) trail rations weigh 1/4 what that human pays for his? I'm paying four times the price to eat! I figure that in the back of the bakery there is a machine that takes those Iron Ration Biscuits and splits them into 4 parts, which they then sell to smaller customers - and for this "service" we halflings & gnomes are charged a "service fee" of 300%! It's outrageous!

It's SIZE discrimination I tell you! We need to protest! Organize! Picket the merchants shops! Block traffic in the streets! Put up H.A.L.T stations! (H.A.L.T. aka. Halfling Army of Liberation Tollbooth)...

the above message was paid for by the Committee for Equal Heights

251 to 300 of 328 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Repercussions of July 18 armor pricing FAQ All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.