Repercussions of July 18 armor pricing FAQ


Pathfinder Society

301 to 328 of 328 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

Why shouldn't large creatures have a disadvantage? They usually get lots of advantages over smaller creatures - bonuses to strength, longer reach, CMB and CMD increases, natural armor... If your Large tiger companion needs more expensive armor than my Medium bear companion, than that makes things more balanced, not less.

Dark Archive 5/5

Matthew Downie wrote:
Why shouldn't large creatures have a disadvantage? They usually get lots of advantages over smaller creatures - bonuses to strength, longer reach, CMB and CMD increases, natural armor... If your Large tiger companion needs more expensive armor than my Medium bear companion, than that makes things more balanced, not less.

Yeah!

Why shouldn't medium creatures have a disadvantage? They usually get lots of advantages over smaller creatures - bonuses to strength, bigger weapons, CMB and CMD increases, natural armor... If your medium cat companion needs more expensive armor than my small badger companion, than that makes things more balanced, not less.

Small peoples of Golarian unite! Throw off the chains of Big Guy oppression! Freedom! Equality! "Equal Standing Before the Law!"

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

Shadow Lodge 4/5

I mean, it does make some sense, but at the same time, there really is no logic or consistency to the overall D&D/PF economy, and trying to make something like this conform to that non-existant system is very odd and counter productive.

If a larger sized item is going to have an dissociated extra cost, it should also have extra benefits.

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

Large creatures do have disadvantages. Cramped battlefields, to-hit penalties that matter much more than CMB bonuses, AC penalties that matter more than CMD bonuses. Much harder to gain cover and prevent AoOs, squeezing is a real risk...

Being large has advantages but there were already built-in disadvantages.

Scarab Sages 5/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.
DM Beckett wrote:

I mean, it does make some sense, but at the same time, there really is no logic or consistency to the overall D&D/PF economy, and trying to make something like this conform to that non-existant system is very odd and counter productive.

If a larger sized item is going to have an dissociated extra cost, it should also have extra benefits.

you know, it could have absolutely zero to do with the economy. It could simply be that even if the design team originally intended it to work the way many have been doing things. And then decided recently, based on 9 years of playtest, that they felt it was unbalanced for things to cost the same. And so rather than changing the entire economy system, they created a quick, but imperfect fix, that does what they need it to do.

Stop people from kitting out their large and huge pets with ridiculous ACs.

Sovereign Court 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tallow wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:

I mean, it does make some sense, but at the same time, there really is no logic or consistency to the overall D&D/PF economy, and trying to make something like this conform to that non-existant system is very odd and counter productive.

If a larger sized item is going to have an dissociated extra cost, it should also have extra benefits.

you know, it could have absolutely zero to do with the economy. It could simply be that even if the design team originally intended it to work the way many have been doing things. And then decided recently, based on 9 years of playtest, that they felt it was unbalanced for things to cost the same. And so rather than changing the entire economy system, they created a quick, but imperfect fix, that does what they need it to do.

Stop people from kitting out their large and huge pets with ridiculous ACs.

I just wish they would say that then. If this is a "fix", call it that. Instead we get another instance of "you know that way you have been doing things all these years? Well, you've been doing it wrong all this time. It actually never worked that way..."

Kind of reminds me about a light bulb joke I heard once...

Q: "How many thought police does it take to screw in a light bulb? "
A: "None. There never *was* any light bulb."

Shadow Lodge 4/5

Tallow wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:

I mean, it does make some sense, but at the same time, there really is no logic or consistency to the overall D&D/PF economy, and trying to make something like this conform to that non-existant system is very odd and counter productive.

If a larger sized item is going to have an dissociated extra cost, it should also have extra benefits.

you know, it could have absolutely zero to do with the economy. It could simply be that even if the design team originally intended it to work the way many have been doing things. And then decided recently, based on 9 years of playtest, that they felt it was unbalanced for things to cost the same. And so rather than changing the entire economy system, they created a quick, but imperfect fix, that does what they need it to do.

Stop people from kitting out their large and huge pets with ridiculous ACs.

I was replying to this:
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.

But, as for what you said, A.) Ive nevery really know this to be an issue, not on the players side, at least, and B.) it sort of fails to do very much for Large sized pets, still making "rediculous" ACs mostly still possible in a certain range thats comparable. All it really does is seem to overly screw over everything that is not Small to Large size, and really makes things on the DM side very wonky.

Being that spells like Mage Armor are unaffected, and really all it is doing making it worse for everyone thats not a caster and making spells like Mage Armor extra beneficial.

Scarab Sages 5/5

Muse. wrote:
Tallow wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:

I mean, it does make some sense, but at the same time, there really is no logic or consistency to the overall D&D/PF economy, and trying to make something like this conform to that non-existant system is very odd and counter productive.

If a larger sized item is going to have an dissociated extra cost, it should also have extra benefits.

you know, it could have absolutely zero to do with the economy. It could simply be that even if the design team originally intended it to work the way many have been doing things. And then decided recently, based on 9 years of playtest, that they felt it was unbalanced for things to cost the same. And so rather than changing the entire economy system, they created a quick, but imperfect fix, that does what they need it to do.

Stop people from kitting out their large and huge pets with ridiculous ACs.

I just wish they would say that then. If this is a "fix", call it that. Instead we get another instance of "you know that way you have been doing things all these years? Well, you've been doing it wrong all this time. It actually never worked that way..."

Kind of reminds me about a light bulb joke I heard once...

Q: "How many thought police does it take to screw in a light bulb? "
A: "None. There never *was* any light bulb."

I don't think they claimed one way or another. They produced an FAQ, that's it. I don't believe an opinion was posted on why they answered the FAQ the way they did.

Scarab Sages 5/5

DM Beckett wrote:
Tallow wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:

I mean, it does make some sense, but at the same time, there really is no logic or consistency to the overall D&D/PF economy, and trying to make something like this conform to that non-existant system is very odd and counter productive.

If a larger sized item is going to have an dissociated extra cost, it should also have extra benefits.

you know, it could have absolutely zero to do with the economy. It could simply be that even if the design team originally intended it to work the way many have been doing things. And then decided recently, based on 9 years of playtest, that they felt it was unbalanced for things to cost the same. And so rather than changing the entire economy system, they created a quick, but imperfect fix, that does what they need it to do.

Stop people from kitting out their large and huge pets with ridiculous ACs.

I was replying to this:
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.

But, as for what you said, A.) Ive nevery really know this to be an issue, not on the players side, at least, and B.) it sort of fails to do very much for Large sized pets, still making "rediculous" ACs mostly still possible in a certain range thats comparable. All it really does is seem to overly screw over everything that is not Small to Large size, and really makes things on the DM side very wonky.

Being that spells like Mage Armor are unaffected, and really all it is doing making it worse for everyone thats not a caster and making spells like Mage Armor extra beneficial.

I don't discount your experience. My experience is that Pet AC gets really gross when you start buying Mithril or Adamantine full plate for your large companion.

3/5

Your companion has zero proficiency with armor, as a base. AFAIK only the cavalier's horse gets Light Armor Proficiency.

Animal companions with full plates need three feats to get there.

Scarab Sages 5/5

GM PDK wrote:

Your companion has zero proficiency with armor, as a base. AFAIK only the cavalier's horse gets Light Armor Proficiency.

Animal companions with full plates need three feats to get there.

Only if you care about the penalties you get for not being proficient.

Sovereign Court 5/5

Tallow wrote:
GM PDK wrote:

Your companion has zero proficiency with armor, as a base. AFAIK only the cavalier's horse gets Light Armor Proficiency.

Animal companions with full plates need three feats to get there.

Only if you care about the penalties you get for not being proficient.

'Nonproficient with Armor Worn: A character who wears armor and/or uses a shield with which he is not proficient takes the armor's (and/or shield's) armor check penalty on attack rolls as well as on all Dexterity- and Strength-based ability and skill checks. The penalty for nonproficiency with armor stacks with the penalty for shields."

so...
heavy armor would give a -6 or -7 to:
attack rolls
Initiative rolls
all other ability checks
and all physical skill rolls...

wow...

who wouldn't care about that?

never mind, I'm sure someone will...

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

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Between the Charger archetype and Mithral armor a companion could get away with wearing field plate without proficiencies.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tallow wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:
Tallow wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:

I mean, it does make some sense, but at the same time, there really is no logic or consistency to the overall D&D/PF economy, and trying to make something like this conform to that non-existant system is very odd and counter productive.

If a larger sized item is going to have an dissociated extra cost, it should also have extra benefits.

you know, it could have absolutely zero to do with the economy. It could simply be that even if the design team originally intended it to work the way many have been doing things. And then decided recently, based on 9 years of playtest, that they felt it was unbalanced for things to cost the same. And so rather than changing the entire economy system, they created a quick, but imperfect fix, that does what they need it to do.

Stop people from kitting out their large and huge pets with ridiculous ACs.

I was replying to this:
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.

But, as for what you said, A.) Ive nevery really know this to be an issue, not on the players side, at least, and B.) it sort of fails to do very much for Large sized pets, still making "rediculous" ACs mostly still possible in a certain range thats comparable. All it really does is seem to overly screw over everything that is not Small to Large size, and really makes things on the DM side very wonky.

Being that spells like Mage Armor are unaffected, and really all it is doing making it worse for everyone thats not a caster and making spells like Mage Armor extra beneficial.

I don't discount your experience. My experience is that Pet AC gets really gross when you start buying Mithril or Adamantine full plate for your large companion.

Why is that an issue? Said characters are, regardless of this ruling, splitting a huge amount of their wealth between themselves and their pet or mount. Even before all other investments. And this is for a mount or pet that, being extremely generous, will probably be sitting out half the game as they do not fit, are not allowed in, or wouldn't make sense to bring inside.

And yet, once again, it basically has no affect on casters and overwelming effect on non-casters.

This is a poor decision that does not make the game better for anyone, plain and simple. And this is coming from someone that does not have a single character affected.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

7 people marked this as a favorite.

I've changed the title of this thread, if only so that I can stop seeing it every day and thinking "oh, did we issue another armor pricing FAQ today?"

3/5

DM Beckett wrote:
This is a poor decision that does not make the game better for anyone, plain and simple. And this is coming from someone that does not have a single character affected.

Now, you can't drop a bomb like DAT and keep us hangin'... (or at least not without sending me a PM... ;) )

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

Vic Wertz wrote:
I've changed the title of this thread, if only so that I can stop seeing it every day and thinking "oh, did we issue another armor pricing FAQ today?"

You should probably also add the year, since Necromancers exist and you know this will be a prime target.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

GM PDK wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:
This is a poor decision that does not make the game better for anyone, plain and simple. And this is coming from someone that does not have a single character affected.
Now, you can't drop a bomb like DAT and keep us hangin'... (or at least not without sending me a PM... ;) )

Im not sure what you mean?

3/5

DM Beckett wrote:
GM PDK wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:
This is a poor decision that does not make the game better for anyone, plain and simple. And this is coming from someone that does not have a single character affected.
Now, you can't drop a bomb like DAT and keep us hangin'... (or at least not without sending me a PM... ;) )
Im not sure what you mean?

Who is this "someone that does not have a single character affected?"

Scarab Sages 5/5

GM PDK wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:
GM PDK wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:
This is a poor decision that does not make the game better for anyone, plain and simple. And this is coming from someone that does not have a single character affected.
Now, you can't drop a bomb like DAT and keep us hangin'... (or at least not without sending me a PM... ;) )
Im not sure what you mean?
Who is this "someone that does not have a single character affected?"

I'm assuming he's referring to himself.

3/5

Tallow wrote:
GM PDK wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:
GM PDK wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:
This is a poor decision that does not make the game better for anyone, plain and simple. And this is coming from someone that does not have a single character affected.
Now, you can't drop a bomb like DAT and keep us hangin'... (or at least not without sending me a PM... ;) )
Im not sure what you mean?
Who is this "someone that does not have a single character affected?"
I'm assuming he's referring to himself.

I see. I thought he had hindsight on the one who made the so called poor decision.

Dark Archive 1/5

Vic Wertz wrote:
I've changed the title of this thread, if only so that I can stop seeing it every day and thinking "oh, did we issue another armor pricing FAQ today?"

Picturing what that moment of the day looks like is making me smile and laugh.

Silver Crusade 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vic Wertz wrote:
I've changed the title of this thread, if only so that I can stop seeing it every day and thinking "oh, did we issue another armor pricing FAQ today?"

Now I'm tempted to start more threads with the word "today" in the title, just to screw with Vic's head. </chaotic evil>

The Exchange 5/5

Ok, I really wasn't following this real well... and now of course I find I am going to need to pay attention to this more. And I work better from examples... I can understand it better if someone would show me kind of how it works, not just in a general way, but in an example.

I have a (low level) Druid with a Big Cat (still Medium sized) Companion and I want to put Calvin (my Cat buddy) into the best armor I can afford. Before I would have done my calculations something like this...

Buying:
"Medium sized Masterwork Parade Barding" - costs would be:
(Parade armor) 25 gp x 2 (barding) = 50 + 150 gp (masterwork) = 50 gp.

does this change?

and how much would "Darkleaf Cloth, Leather Lamellar barding for a medium animal" cost? (with the calculations not just the total cost)

How about the same thing for a Large Animal? (so I can see what changed in the calculations).

1/5

Okay, so Darkleaf Cloth, Leather Lamellar for a medium human costs 810.
For a medium animal you double that price to 1620.
For making it large that's another x2 for 3240.

The Exchange 5/5

Thomas Hutchins wrote:

Okay, so Darkleaf Cloth, Leather Lamellar for a medium human costs 810.

For a medium animal you double that price to 1620.
For making it large that's another x2 for 3240.

so for non-special materials do you still double the cost of medium human armor? to craft it as barding...

Buying:
"Medium sized Masterwork Parade Barding" - would have cost:
(Parade armor) 25 gp x 2 (barding) = 50 + 150 gp (masterwork) = 200 gp.
I just realized I had a typo in my first calculation post above... corrected it here

would it now be...
(Parade armor) 25 gp + 150 gp (masterwork) = 175 gp. x2 (for a medium animal) = 350gp.?

Scarab Sages 4/5

Hobbs. wrote:
Thomas Hutchins wrote:

Okay, so Darkleaf Cloth, Leather Lamellar for a medium human costs 810.

For a medium animal you double that price to 1620.
For making it large that's another x2 for 3240.

so for non-special materials do you still double the cost of medium human armor? to craft it as barding...

Buying:
"Medium sized Masterwork Parade Barding" - would have cost:
(Parade armor) 25 gp x 2 (barding) = 50 + 150 gp (masterwork) = 200 gp.
I just realized I had a typo in my first calculation post above... corrected it here

would it now be...
(Parade armor) 25 gp + 150 gp (masterwork) = 175 gp. x2 (for a medium animal) = 350gp.?

It would be 200 gold. They clarified that the masterwork cost is not multiplied. The cost of special materials, however, is multiplied, even if those costs include the masterwork cost.

So masterwork chain barding, multiply the cost of the armor and add 150 gold.

Mitral chain barding, add the mithral cost to the cost of the armor, then multiply.

3/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
Vic Wertz wrote:
I've changed the title of this thread, if only so that I can stop seeing it every day and thinking "oh, did we issue another armor pricing FAQ today?"
You should probably also add the year, since Necromancers exist and you know this will be a prime target.

I've set a reminder.

301 to 328 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.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Society