|
| 50 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 32 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am requesting a suspension of the the recent FAQ on cost multipliers for items. It can be found here.
There has much discussion, especially on the PFS side of the house, about this and people are bring up valid conflicts that the new FAQ has created.
I am asking that the FAQ be suspended pending additional review as I believe there are unintended consequences as a result of the FAQ.
Additionally, this change has a huge impact to characters that are going to be played at GenCon (and other conventions) that will require significant time for players to resolve.
Please note: I am not asking for it to be reversed, just suspended pending a second review of the concerns that are being raised.
Thank you
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Additionally, this FAQ is in direct contradiction of the rules printed in Ultimate Equipment and the Core Rulebook:
The cost of armor for non-humanoid creatures, as well as for creatures who are neither Small nor Medium, varies. The cost of the masterwork quality and any magical enhancement remains the same.
The cost of weapons for creatures that are neither Small nor Medium varies. The cost of the masterwork quality and any magical enhancement remains the same.
|
|
I am requesting a suspension of the the recent FAQ on cost multipliers for items. It can be found here.
There has much discussion, especially on the PFS side of the house, about this and people are bring up valid conflicts that the new FAQ has created.
I am asking that the FAQ be suspended pending additional review as I believe there are unintended consequences as a result of the FAQ.
Additionally, this change has a huge impact to characters that are going to be played at GenCon (and other conventions) that will require significant time for players to resolve.
Please note: I am not asking for it to be reversed, just suspended pending a second review of the concerns that are being raised.
Thank you
Suspension of enforcing a FAQ is a PFS thing, not something the PDT decide.
And most of the arguments are similar to the ones in the original thread.
They did force the PDT to reconsider originally, but in the end it wasn't enough to change their mind. (less material is less and more material is more gosh darn it! I don't care what mechanically this changes.)
So there's no reason for the PDT to change their mind now. They already had a rough idea how many people supported the cheaper view so they should have been expecting the level of frustration seen.
Like I'd love for them to change it to be a rule that make sense within the system and previous publications. But that's not the trend they do things now a day.
|
|
Bigger shapes need more material. This FAQ is reasonable to me.then why does a adamantine dagger is worth the same cost as the adamantine greatsword? both add 3000 GP because of adamantine for medium character
That part always made sense to me. But why does the masterwork quality cost twice as much?
Supply and demand for Frost giant artisans?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bigger shapes need more material. This FAQ is reasonable to me.then why does a adamantine dagger is worth the same cost as the adamantine greatsword? both add 3000 GP because of adamantine for medium character
even better, a SMALL adamantine dagger is the same price as a medium adamantine greatsword, that is 3 tiers of size different being the same price.
A HUGE adamantine dagger, which is the same item category size as the greatsword, costs 4 times as much, though again being roughly the same tier of size.Like if this different pricing for different sized weapons was already a thing in Pathfinder then the ruling makes sense. But since the pricing in pathfinder doesn't and just cares about the user's size and that small and medium are the same for rules balance, it seems strange to now justify drastic changes due to size. The rules for this have always been about mechanical balance with a nod to realism (having the higher BASE weapon cost accomplishes this)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bigger shapes need more material. This FAQ is reasonable to me.
Yep, so it's totally understandable that people will make tiny armor with fitting to save a bunch of cash by using much less material and using magic to size it to you. Do you think the PDT intended to make buying mithril/adamantine armor cheaper for the average character?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not that it will do any good but *pawprint*
LOL I'll mark it too if for no other reason than I want to let the dust clear from the inevitable 'ban hammers from space' that size changing magics will get in an effort to make the FAQ seem better in comparison. :P
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Cavall, have you read the prior thread where cold iron was brought up? And how the FAQ breaks how every cold iron weapon has ever been designed? Or how it makes half of the Ancestral Weapon trait not work?
The main issue with this FAQ is that it breaks a bunch of rules interactions and directly contradicts the latest versions of multiple Core Line books.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do I think the team intended for that? No. The forums are full of optimizers, that's not the standard of playing. Fitting is a loophole not the intention.Bigger shapes need more material. This FAQ is reasonable to me.Yep, so it's totally understandable that people will make tiny armor with fitting to save a bunch of cash by using much less material and using magic to size it to you. Do you think the PDT intended to make buying mithril/adamantine armor cheaper for the average character?
There are MULTIPLE ways to change size though: it's NOT like fitting is the one sneaky loophole. And this 'loophole' make perfect sense for the reason YOU gave: "Bigger shapes need more material." It makes sense, in game, that people would use magic instead of wasting all that extra material. I see NO reason the world our characters live in wouldn't be "full of optimizers" that would use that 'loophole'. If you think the FAQ makes sense, then using fitting also makes perfect sense.
|
|
Exactly, we're in this weird limbo where an FAQ directly contradicts the text of core line books without stating that those books are wrong or an Errata being issued on them.
So which one takes precedence? The main reason I'm supporting this is to get it more visible so we can hopefully get a speedy response from the PDT.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I fundamentally support the change that larger gear requires higher cost. So for that portion of the petition I am not in agreement and am glad to see the FAQ change.
I am though fundamentally opposed to the whole multiplier on masterwork costs problem that the FAQ started. That makes zero sense to me and as previously shown (below) is contrary to the rules from the CRB. Therefore am in support of its suspension simply because it's so poorly worded and thought through.
Additionally, this FAQ is in direct contradiction of the rules printed in Ultimate Equipment and the Core Rulebook:
The cost of armor for non-humanoid creatures, as well as for creatures who are neither Small nor Medium, varies. The cost of the masterwork quality and any magical enhancement remains the same.The cost of weapons for creatures that are neither Small nor Medium varies. The cost of the masterwork quality and any magical enhancement remains the same.
Another thing that needs to be considered is the Resize Item spell, which is a requirement for constructing Fitting armor. That spell lets you change the size of armor worn for hours at a time and can be made permanent, so it shares most of the problems of Fitting armor.
Another thing that needs to be considered is the Resize Item spell, which is a requirement for constructing Fitting armor. That spell lets you change the size of armor worn for hours at a time and can be made permanent, so it shares most of the problems of Fitting armor.
There is a ring that resizes items too and slivers that resize weapons. As I said, resizing isn't limited to fitting. A large creature would be crazy to not buy a medium sized adamantine weapon, use the slivers on it for 1000gp and save 2000gp...
I support this petition as well. While I don't personally care one way or another the FAQ goes (it's unlikely to ever become an issue at my table), the FAQ as-written has a number of holes that require additional clarification. For example, the line in CRB and UE contradicting the FAQ regarding masterwork prices with no mention of errata, and how the resizing stuff in Giant Hunter's Handbook should work in light of the decision (should the ruling in the FAQ be kept, these are now very exploitable to get larger weapons/armor for significantly cheaper than before -- a tiny +1 fitting adamantine full plate is 6250 gp cheaper than a medium +1 adamantine full plate with this FAQ for example).
Given the reaction I am seeing to this FAQ, I have to wonder -- was anyone already interpreting the pricing rules in accordance with the new FAQ?
And for the PFS folks affected by the ruling -- since there was likely table variation in pricing armor outside the Small to Medium size range, do the PFS procedures allow you to document what price you bought affected armor for?
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East
|
Given the reaction I am seeing to this FAQ, I have to wonder -- was anyone already interpreting the pricing rules in accordance with the new FAQ?
And for the PFS folks affected by the ruling -- since there was likely table variation in pricing armor outside the Small to Medium size range, do the PFS procedures allow you to document what price you bought affected armor for?
If people have been keeping their paperwork straight, yes. The player has a tracking sheet that lists every item (over 40gp) you bought and when you bought it.
|
|
do the PFS procedures allow you to document what price you bought affected armor for?
Not due to table variation, but the PFS rules require you to record every purchase above <mumble*> 40 gp on your Inventory Tracking Sheet.
* 20 or 50 I think. I just record almost anything. Makes life easier.
EDIT: Ninjaed
|
Given the reaction I am seeing to this FAQ, I have to wonder -- was anyone already interpreting the pricing rules in accordance with the new FAQ?
And for the PFS folks affected by the ruling -- since there was likely table variation in pricing armor outside the Small to Medium size range, do the PFS procedures allow you to document what price you bought affected armor for?
There was/is one very vocal ex-VO who has always believed items were priced this way.
Nobody else to my knowledge has ever handled it this way.
Lots of characters and Animal Companions will require overhalls.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Given the reaction I am seeing to this FAQ, I have to wonder -- was anyone already interpreting the pricing rules in accordance with the new FAQ?
No, we saw masterwork cold iron long sword in the pocket-sized CRB that was printed only a year ago at 330 gold and assumed that the formula in the CRB of double weapon cost + masterwork cost was correct.
|
|
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm amused at buying all my Mithral/Adamantine gear size Tiny and using Resize Item.
Until they ban that spell. That said, I'm guessing your characters will all be Small or Medium size as the spell only changes an item up to two categories. So Tiny = Medium and Small = Large.
I also support this petition. Currently, the PFS Iconic Amiri can no longer afford her large bastard sword as she does not A) have enough money and B) enough Fame to purchase it.
When your new rule not only contradicts the newest updated Core rules that were printed only a year ago in pocket form, but also makes one of your own story-based characters illegal, you done messed up son.
|
I also support this petition. Currently, the PFS Iconic Amiri can no longer afford her large bastard sword as she does not A) have enough money and B) enough Fame to purchase it.
When your new rule not only contradicts the newest updated Core rules that were printed only a year ago in pocket form, but also makes one of your own story-based characters illegal, you done messed up son.
I don't have the best understanding of Fame/Prestige so can someone explain this to me?
|
|
I don't have the best understanding of Fame/Prestige so can someone explain this to me?I also support this petition. Currently, the PFS Iconic Amiri can no longer afford her large bastard sword as she does not A) have enough money and B) enough Fame to purchase it.
When your new rule not only contradicts the newest updated Core rules that were printed only a year ago in pocket form, but also makes one of your own story-based characters illegal, you done messed up son.
When a character completes a Society mission, they get a number of 'Prestige Points' (either 0, 1, or 2, barring unusual circumstances). They spend like currency for things like resurrections, buying wands of Cure Light wounds, etc.
In addition, there's a 'running tally' of how many Prestige Points a character has earned in their career called 'Fame'.
Because factions don't want people to dip in and make off with their best stuff, they restrict access to the 'better stuff' until the character has proven their dedication to a given Faction.
The higher the Fame, the greater the amount of coin the character can use to purchase 'non-standard' items (that aren't on the 'Always Available' list).
EDIT:
Minimum Fame Required Maximum Item Cost
Under 5 0 gp
5 500 gp
9 1,500 gp
13 3,000 gp
18 5,250 gp
22 8,000 gp
27 11,750 gp
31 16,500 gp
36 23,000 gp
40 31,000 gp
45 41,000 gp
49 54,000 gp
54 70,000 gp
58 92,500 gp
63 120,000 gp
67 157,500 gp
72 205,000 gp
76 265,000 gp
81 342,500 gp
85 440,000 gp
90 565,000 gp
94 680,000 gp
99 800,000 gp
I don't see anyone benefiting from this honestly. Maybe a few corner cases where a tiny familiar or companion got mithril full-plate and gets a rebate now, but I don't think that's gonna be a significant number of impacted players.
|
|
Gotcha, I thought the mention of buying Wands was what people usually did with their first PP. How does this affect Amiri though?
A Large weapon's price with the new FAQ is well and beyond the range of what a character at Amiri's level should be able to afford (much less purchase via Fame), and it's not on the list of 'Always available equipment'.
EDIT: Correction, there's another thing there and I messed it up somehow, someone with better rules-fu can probably answer it better than my neophyte tailfeathers.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't read the FAQ as multiplying enhancement or enchantment costs, but I suppose if the +300gp from Masterwork is being multiplied then everything else would be, too.
Easiest way to "fix" this FAQ would be to edit away the bit about Masterwork being multiplied.
We'd still have a lot of PFSers left rebuilding their characters, but at least the FAQ wouldn't contradict so many printed items.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@nicholas storm The CRB also says that masterwork cost isn't changed for different sized weapons, but it is now multiplied as of this FAQ.
Edit: Curious, that text about masterwork specifically not being doubled for Cold Iron weapons is included in the CRB but not Ultimate Equipment.