|
@ GarbageTierWaifu Basically the issue is that equipment made of special materials just got a lot more expensive for large and larger creatures and a lot less expensive for tiny and smaller creatures.
This is mainly an issue because it makes animal companion barding cost far more than it used to, and directly contradicts quotes from other core line rulebooks.
Additionally, it opens up an exploit where you can buy tiny or smaller armor/weapons and use one of a variety of size changing magics to get your equipment for far cheaper than before.
And the reason it's a problem that it contradict the CRB and Ultimate Equipment is because they didn't errata those books or have the FAQ state that it supercedes them. In the past when an FAQ came out that directly contradicted the rules, it has said that the changed would be reflected in errata. So we're sorts in this weird limbo where we don't know whether the FAQ or the latest printing of the books is the correct authority.
You didn't say it was adamantine in your post. Now that number makes more sense.
Oh, sorry about that. I thought I'd added that.
Yeah, some say 'it makes sense' for heavier armors to cost more but you have weapons that have a greater variance that cost the same. [weight x1 to x12 costs x32(armor) more while - to 20 lbs of weapon costs the same]
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My guess is that since Fitting appears in the Giant Hunter's Handbook, it didn't factor into the FAQ. I think the PDT has said on panels before that they only consider the RPG line, because they can't account for all of the options in all of the splat book, as those don't fall under their control.
I can completely understand why this affects so many people, and why they would be upset. That being said, it is entirely possible that for special materials, this FAQ is how it was always meant to work. I don't think there is anything anywhere saying that you don't multiply the special material cost. That's a rough ruling for people who read it the other way, and I can also certainly understand reading it the other way, but I don't see that as necessarily a change to how things worked before.
My main issues with it are including the masterwork cost, as that's contradictory for things like cold iron and pricing of previously published items, and the ambiguity around enhancement costs. I don't think it applies to enhancement costs, but if it does, it will break a lot of published material. I'm sure there are far more large or bigger magic weapons and armor out there in products than there are large or bigger weapons and armor made from special materials.
fitting There is also spells [that can be made permanent], a ring that resizes items and slivers that resize weapons. This enchant isn't a lone standout.
Spells being made permanent are about as expensive as the raw armor itself, and I believe Permanency doesn't exist in PFS. If it does, I highly doubt people can afford it.
The ring takes up a slot, and since the other one is presumably for the Big 6, I don't think people will readily sacrifice that slot so casually.
Never heard of those Slivers before. Closest thing that comes to mind is the Effortless Lace, but that's not a resizing effect.
The irony is that I even tried looking that property up between the D20 site, Nethys, and Google, and I still didn't find it. I found other obscure enchantments, and the weapon version of that enchantment but not the actual enchantment itself. Weird.
Either way, I imagine that PFS will end up banning the relevant property (or properties) to accommodate the new FAQ, since it will most likely be brought to their attention that people can cheese those properties in an attempt to save money, and as such will ban it in an attempt to curb the abuse. (Those properties shouldn't exist anyway for this very exact reason.)
As I mentioned before, the other alternative is that PFS will backlash so much from the well-known abuse that it will result in permanent nerfs for the associated properties, akin to the Crane Wing incident, something I can imagine is far worse than the usual PFS abuse that occurs everytime there is a PFS game.
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
That being said, it is entirely possible that for special materials, this FAQ is how it was always meant to work.
1) Paizo didn't follow their own rule on that. All of the examples are coming up as not having followed this rule, at all
2) fifteen years later is a bit too late to change the way that ( a larger majority than even i thought it was, judging by the torch and pitchfork mob) was doing it.
|
|
That being said, it is entirely possible that for special materials, this FAQ is how it was always meant to work.1) Paizo didn't follow their own rule on that. All of the examples are coming up as not having followed this rule, at all
2) fifteen years later is a bit too late to change the way that ( a larger majority than even i thought it was, judging by the torch and pitchfork mob) was doing it.
I've seen examples for cold iron not multiplying the masterwork cost (which I agree is/was the rule). I don't remember seeing examples of large weapons/armor with special materials posted in this thread or the PFS one. I might have missed them, though.
Darksol the Painbringer:
Iron Lord's Transforming Slivers
Both fitting and slivers searches show items on nethys
Not talking about PFS but 'normal' pathfinder: I play online so I rarely have the same DM for any length of time so I'd rather not have more possible house-rule material.
I've seen examples for cold iron not multiplying the masterwork cost (which I agree is/was the rule). I don't remember seeing examples of large weapons/armor with special materials posted in this thread or the PFS one. I might have missed them, though.
The only example I could find of a large adamantine weapon doesn't follow the FAQ. Some disliked it because it made the mistake of adding masterwork to the cost [+300] but IMO it was still showed it NOT using the new math.
|
|
EDIT: (graystone-)Was that out of a Bestiary or something in the RPG line? Again, I can see them not feeling bound by (or even aware of) an example buried in a module somewhere, and there are mistakes in statblocks of modules and scenarios all the time. One example from an obscure location isn't as compelling as the argument for how cold iron and masterwork interact, which has text from the CRB and examples from Ultimate Equipment -- both in the RPG line that the PDT looks at. If there are multiple examples from published adventures, and those examples are consistent, that would definitely help make things clearer.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16
|
I never understand why we get FAQs that contradict well established rules, clarifying things that no one asked for clarification.
Yet we have many vague rules that the community has FAQ'd for years without answer.
To be fair clarification was asked. A couple hundred times.
It was? If so, I stand corrected.
Mithral weapon cost was already determined by the weight of the weapon. But by the FAQ, I still multiply it? So mithril weapons are either significantly cheaper or significantly more expensive. What is more, the masterwork price is already included in the price of the material.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ferious Thune: It's posted in the other thread. I'm sure it was from a module but I'll disagree on "I can see them not feeling bound by (or even aware of) an example buried in a module somewhere". It took me less than a minute to find it on nethys from a search for adamantine and looking at the magic weapons that came up. If they didn't know it existed, it's because they didn't bother to look.
As to 'multiple examples', I toss that weapon in with all the cold iron weapon examples and it makes a CLEAR pattern of how weapons of special materials are priced and it's NOT how the FAQ explains it.
|
|
Calculating the cost of cold iron and calculating the cost of a size increase are two different issues. Cold iron specifically states not to multiply the masterwork cost. I agree they shouldn't have changed that part of it.
You would need an example of a large or bigger cold iron weapon to use it to support how the cost of a large or bigger weapon made from special materials should be calculated. All I'm saying is, there's one example of a large weapon made from special materials, and it's from a product that the PDT doesn't oversee. Whether they searched and found it or not, it doesn't mean they think it's calculated right according to the rules.
I get it. This is a tough ruling for a lot of characters. 300,000+ gold for any mundane item seems ridiculous, no matter how big it is. Personally, I'd rather all special materials were based on the weight of the item like Mithral is for weapons. I think that would be a better system, even if it means slightly more math for small and medium weapons and armor or that making some medium armor mithral is less expensive than other Mithral armor. Of course, doing that, a Mithral chain shirt would be 6,350gp (25lbsx250gp+100gp), which isn't exactly a great situation either. So it would need cost adjustment across the board to make it practical.
None of that changes that the actual published rule was ambiguous (except about the masterwork part), so presenting this as a change to the rules isn't necessarily accurate.
I don't know if there's any winning here. If you don't make the materials cost multiplied by the appropriate size modifier, you get into situations where you can find a large mithral set of armor, melt it down and make two sets of that same armor in medium that sell for almost as much each.
I wonder if the best solution is simply to make special materials more special and subsequently especially large creatures simply don't use the rare stuff (because who could afford it.)
You can build any number of effective characters without needing oversized gear (though an exception might need to be made for mounts).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I get it. This is a tough ruling for a lot of characters. 300,000+ gold for any mundane item seems ridiculous, no matter how big it is.
You're looking at it wrong: This ruling just made just about EVERYONE'S armor cheaper, with tiny + fitting. [and medium->large weapons w/ slivers] What The main issue I think a lot of us have is we're waiting for the other shoe to drop. The FAQ doesn't jive with the current rules and options so we wonder just how hard those rules/options are going to be hit with a nerf hammer It's not if there is going to be a nerf but just how much the earth is going to be scorched in decimating anything even close to size changing...
It's hard to move on when the FAQ just made the existing rules/options something that's on borrowed time. Why use an option that's likely to change at a moment's notice?
nicholas storm: The FAQ states add all additions before multipliers. That means cold iron adds mastercraft + base weapon then multiplies. This contradicts the cold iron rule in the book. Cold iron isn't an exception because the FAQ question included 'special material' without exception. If cold iron IS meant to be an exception, they didn't word it correctly to reflect that.
PossibleCabbage: You run into that issue with or without a modifier. Based on size I take a medium set of armor, break it down and make 2 sets of small armor and I doubled my money...
I think it is an exception, because a FAQ is supposed to clarify what the rule is, not change it. The rule for cost of cold iron masterwork is clearly stated in the core rulebook.
The problem is that the ONLY thing the FAQ did was change the rules. I can't find a single instance of the FAQ math being used ever. The FAQ system has a LONG history of being used as the poor man's errata system for pathfinder. It often radically alters/changes the rules as making an actual errata has to wait until the physical book gets a reprint...
but then all the tiny and diminutive races will be running around stacked to the nines with adamantine weapons and mithril armor for next to no cost
All the PC races are small or medium though, and they should be fine either way.
The "fitting" loophole will need to be fixed somehow though. I like simply limiting access to smiths that are not themselves small, medium, or large.
|
|
Calculating the cost of cold iron and calculating the cost of a size increase are two different issues. Cold iron specifically states not to multiply the masterwork cost. I agree they shouldn't have changed that part of it.
I don't believe the FAQ changes the cost of masterwork cold iron.
Specific ruling in the core rulebook vs general FAQ ruling. Specific rule in the core rule book overrides general FAQ.
That's entirely possible, too, and probably how I'd rule it until they clarify further.
There's also this that someone quoted in the PFS thread:
"Ultimate Equipment, p. 115, "ARMOR FOR UNUSUAL CREATURES: The cost of armor for non-humanoid creatures, as well as for creatures who are neither Small nor Medium, varies (see page 15). The cost of the masterwork quality and any magical enhancement remains the same.""
So if that's also a case of specific overrides general, then a large masterwork chain shirt would cost 350gp instead of 500gp. It's harder to figure how that line factors in to calculating the cost of things like mithral, which include the masterwork cost already.
I'm not necessarily in favor of the more expensive price. I can see it getting ridiculous. I just think it's important to understand that there's a chance a lot of people were interpreting the rule wrong from the beginning, and that the PDT didn't necessarily consider something like Fitting when they issued the FAQ. I'm certainly not going to tell anyone to adjust their character in PFS until at least John Compton weighs back in on this, and I can support asking the PDT to take another look at it. I'm just not very hopeful that they're going to change their answer.
graystone - I've already pointed out why the PDT, based on things they've said in the past, may not have considered something like Fitting when they addressed this rule (It's not in an RPG line book). My guess is that Fitting will either be removed from PFS, or that there will be a campaign clarification issued for it limiting how large it can make armor relative to its starting size.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
but then all the tiny and diminutive races will be running around stacked to the nines with adamantine weapons and mithril armor for next to no costAll the PC races are small or medium though, and they should be fine either way.
The "fitting" loophole will need to be fixed somehow though. I like simply limiting access to smiths that are not themselves small, medium, or large.
Cool. I use fabricate to make medium sized adamantine heavy armor. Then cast it 2 more times to change that armor into 2 sets of small armor: Profit. Will fitting getting changed fix this 'loophole'?
Ferious Thune : Could care less what PFS does with fitting as I don't play it. And as I've shown, the basic game has a built in explote/loophole: a suit of medium armor weight x2 as much as a small set but costs the same: making one and dividing it in half means you doubled your cash.
And as to PDT not knowing about fitting... Really? I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that they can make a basic web search and/or search the rules sites available. There isn't an excuse as 'not knowing a rule' related to size/size categories when you can search for those words and skimming the results. That's how I found the ways to alter the size of equipment to post in this message board and it didn't take long at all.
|
|
graystone - You're misunderstanding what I am saying about Fitting and your example from the module... I am not saying that they for sure didn't know about it. I'm saying that they have publicly stated before that they don't make the base rules of the game (the RPG line) by taking into account every rule published in every splat book. They also don't look at every interaction with every rule from the splat books. They look at the RPG line and how things work with respect to those books. They may have been completely aware that Fitting exists and the problems it creates... but it's not in one of the books they control. Maybe they'll reprint it like they did with Fencing Grace or the stuff in the Adventurer's Guide. Or maybe they'll leave it up to GMs to decide whether they want to allow it. But basing a ruling about the core game around the problems that it might create for one enhancement that a freelancer (possibly, don't know who wrote it) included in a splat book isn't the philosophy that they've publicly stated they follow.
I'm not justifying their ruling. I'm not saying that Fitting isn't an issue. I'm explaining what they have stated and why they might have made the ruling they think is correct, despite the existence of Fitting.
The reason I brought up PFS is that it's where Fitting is likely to be addressed. The PDT doesn't need to comment on it, because for home games, they can just leave it up to the GMs to decide whether or not they want to use it or what restrictions to put on it. PFS may decide to address it with regards to how it works in PFS, which is the only place that is bound by the ruling to begin with.
For another example, take the Adamantine weapon you mentioned. I still haven't been able to find it, but that's beside the point. Say, for example, it appeared in the module "Fighting the Giant Creatures" by Ferious Thune. I look at the rule, and I'm not sure how to calculate the price, so I list what I think is correct. I turn in my freelance work, and the Paizo developer looks it over and doesn't notice, or doesn't realize there might be a question about the price, so it gets published. The PDT comes along to look at this FAQ and sees the item. If they just go with what's in that module, then they are allowing the freelancer to decide the rules of the game, instead of looking at the core rules and deciding for themselves how it was meant to work. That's why examples from books outside the core line aren't necessarily strong enough evidence of how it was meant to work. Especially when there is only one example either way. So again, if there were an overwhelming number of examples, or if there were examples from the RPG line, it would be clearer how the rule was meant to work. One example from an adventure just isn't enough to say one way or the other, and it isn't a reason for the PDT to rule contrary to how they believe the game should work (even if you or I disagree with their ruling).
If I knew a place on the boards I could link to with one of the design team's statements, I would. The main place I remember hearing them talk about it was in the recordings from the Paizocon panels. I think they said something along those lines again this year in the Pathfinder Design Team Q&A, but I'd have to listen to it again to find it.
|
|
Thanks. All of those definitely support the idea that the masterwork cost wasn't previously multiplied, and I think that's a part of the FAQ that might conceivably get reversed.
Re: Blancher - So it's reverse engineering the price of the mundane item from a named magic item with special abilities that don't have a set price? That makes it even more unreliable. A +4 costs 32000. If the Adamantine Heavy Pick is figured at 3312, that leaves 18,000 for everything else the item does. I mean, it looks like that's how it breaks down, but it's possible the mundane part was valued at 6312 (still not right under any system), and the rest at 15,000. That's unlikely, but in such a complicated situation, I'm really reluctant to base interpretation of a sweeping core rule off of it. And shouldn't the crafting cost be 31656 based on their price? EDIT: Ok, I guess for magic weapon cost it's assuming you're starting with the masterwork weapon at full price and only halving the cost of the enhancement. That makes it more likely they're pricing it at 3,312 like you said.
I'm seeing three things from this little search of mine:
1) They need to check each other's math before they print this stuff. Shesh.2) They have not been following the "Clarified" rule at all, as far as I can tell. They did not double for adamantine, did not double for any of the masterworks, and frequently did not double for the base cost (And one time multiplied the base cost by 1.5 See 1 above.)
3) No one seems to know that barding costs more than armor for a human.
Yep... All I can be 100% sure of after I looks through things was that no were have they ever used the 'new math' before.
#1 yeah, you find minor errors throughout the game with gp being off a few gp the most prevalent.
#2 Yep, couldn't find anything close: I've never seen a suit of armor that had a mastercrafted cost of other than 300 or a weapon of anything other than 150.
#3 more likely they forget/ignore it costs differently when making it up.
Blancher: Yep, that's the only oversized adamantine weapon I found on a casual search. I assume the price difference is they forgot mastercraft was included in the price. Not sure how they messed up the base cost.
PS: I'm actually warming up to all special material armor being tiny fitting armor. It makes it easy to price out npc's and loot [no chart to look at] and you don't have to worry that an encounter will drop hundreds of thousands of dollars JUST from mundane armor. it sure makes a DM's job easier.
Also, it enforces a dc 20 handle animal check to armor an animal now. Fitting armor changes to the size of the creature HOLDING it. You can't make it the size of some other creature unless they are the same size as you. You want that horse to wear that barding? Convince her to help, or make her smaller somehow.
Well, you could get around that by increasing your size instead: for instance , an enlarge person would be enough for a medium creature to armor up that horse without it's help. ;)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes I wonder if the Devs have as much system mastery as some of their customers. Perhaps they should hire someone with very high system mastery to do quality assurance and point out the problems. :P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I guess this is yet another FAQ to add to my 'actively ignore' list.
I don't what it is, but it just seems of late like FAQing something is almost a coin flip. Heads and you just get a clarification or correction like mythic Form of the Dragon. Tails and instead the rule you asked about gets completely rewritten. :/
PS: I'm actually warming up to all special material armor being tiny fitting armor. It makes it easy to price out npc's and loot [no chart to look at] and you don't have to worry that an encounter will drop hundreds of thousands of dollars JUST from mundane armor. it sure makes a DM's job easier.
Which means in turn that if your players see an enemy in adamantine full plate, they know they can disarmor her with a targeted dispel magic.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Conceptually, I'm all for trying to address the special material pricing, which makes no sense.
Consider a Large mithral breastplate.
With the new ruling, it's worth (150+4000)*2 = 8300gp
With the old ruling, it was 150*2+4000 = 4300gp
If you melt it down to a huge pile of mithral, it's worth 30*2*500= 30000gp
No matter what, something is wrong here. I would be fine with it being worth less when melt down, but not (way) more... Especially given the rules are very affirmative on the fact that it is no plating.
So, this FAQ solves nothing, and has a bunch of issues, most notably the fact that it invalidates many, many printed material.
Honestly, this needs a PF 2.0, you can't reliably address it with FAQ, unless you are prepared to errata almost everything.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Conceptually, I'm all for trying to address the special material pricing, which makes no sense.
Consider a Large mithral breastplate.
With the new ruling, it's worth (150+4000)*2 = 8300gp
With the old ruling, it was 150*2+4000 = 4300gp
If you melt it down to a huge pile of mithral, it's worth 30*2*500= 30000gpNo matter what, something is wrong here. I would be fine with it being worth less when melt down, but not (way) more... Especially given the rules are very affirmative on the fact that it is no plating.
So, this FAQ solves nothing, and has a bunch of issues, most notably the fact that it invalidates many, many printed material.
Honestly, this needs a PF 2.0, you can't reliably address it with FAQ, unless you are prepared to errata almost everything.
The problem here is people are trying to treat separate elements of the system as if they are somehow linked.
1) Mithral was priced as a 'this does effect X so should cost Y'.
2) Mithral has been given a price per pound for trade purposes. This has no bearing on the price of #1.
Pathfinder has a poor economy system. As long as wealth is a form of game balance economics will never work 'correctly' (as defined by some).
In short, this is a game of mechanics, balance gp costs based on mechanical benefits and ignore economics.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Conceptually, I'm all for trying to address the special material pricing, which makes no sense.Yeah, no. They are not priced "Conceptually", they are priced for balance, supposedly.
Then, I don't see what is stopping them from reducing mithral base price to be more consistent.
Also, given the number of mithral armors I see around players (myself included), I'd say it could be more expensive and still good.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The point of my request to suspend the FAQ for additional review is because I play PFS exclusive. For those who don't play in that mode, we have to follow what is put out for the Pathfinder game in general until it is modified by PFS campaign leadership.
With a major convention coming in less than a month, players need to update their characters to account for this new FAQ. PFS Campaign leadership needs time to determine how they are going to handle any new changes. And leadership has to take into account all the legal Pathfinder projects, not just the core books.
A good number of us will be GMing at GenCon and as GMs, we have to make sure that players have legal characters. This change to how much items costs could lead to situations where a player, who may be unaware a change has occurred, is told by a GM that he needs to adjust his stuff. When he is sitting down to play. Where 5 other people are also waiting to play. GMs are going to have to do this any because of the FAQ about ranged ammo not taking on the bonuses of the weapon to overcome DR. PFS leadership quickly responded with direction on how to handle that.
So the timing is poor for this. And numerous people have pointed out contradictions with long established rules that the FAQ is creating.
So I believe a pause is needed to review what the FAQ is saying.
I hope the powers that be are seeing this discussion and will react quickly with a definitive response.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If this is a PFS issue, it should be in the PFS section of the boards. Or are you expecting the design team to remove the changes they just put out, because it affects a few people in organized play? I trust the staff a lot more than that.
I do NOT support this petition, despite the fact that some of my PCs will have to spend a bit more money.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If this is a PFS issue, it should be in the PFS section of the boards. Or are you expecting the design team to remove the changes they just put out, because it affects a few people in organized play? I trust the staff a lot more than that.
I do NOT support this petition, despite the fact that some of my PCs will have to spend a bit more money.
This much like the Monk = Two weapon fighting FAQ. affects alot of things besides just the cost of these items. There is a ripple to suddenly revealing that a majority of at least forum goers assumed that it worked contrary to the way the FAQ explains it.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I guess this is yet another FAQ to add to my 'actively ignore' list.
I don't what it is, but it just seems of late like FAQing something is almost a coin flip. Heads and you just get a clarification or correction like mythic Form of the Dragon. Tails and instead the rule you asked about gets completely rewritten. :/
That's...pretty much how answering a question on any contentious topic works, actually. If the answer agrees with your preconceived ideas then it's a worthy clarification. If it disagrees it's a change out of nowhere.
This particular FAQ, for me, agrees with how I think special materials should have been done all along. It surprises me with the masterwork bit though, I never thought that was multiplied.
You can still get a ridiculous AC on an animal companion just by buying normal full plate barding. You just have to spend the armor proficiency feats if you don't want to deal with ACP to attacks. I've had a triceratops riding cavalier whose Mounted Combat feat was rendered worthless by the fact that my mount's AC was higher than 20+my Ride bonus.
