| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
That can be said of almost ANY item as everything except armor/weapons automatically changes size. A dispel magic can cause a helm/headband to fall off, gauntlets to slip boots to shrink, rings chop off fingers, ect... No item is exactly your size unless you had it custom made: so you have to note the exact size each and every one of your items was when you got it, because someone might dispel it. That's a rabbit hole best ignored as combat quickly devolves into a battle to see who can disrobe the other side first...
That can be said of almost ANY item as everything except armor/weapons automatically changes size. A dispel magic can cause a helm/headband to fall off, gauntlets to slip boots to shrink, rings chop off fingers, ect... No item is exactly your size unless you had it custom made: so you have to note the exact size each and every one of your items was when you got it, because someone might dispel it. That's a rabbit hole best ignored as combat quickly devolves into a battle to see who can disrobe the other side first...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.
I think there was a video game about vampires based on that goal.
I think there was a video game about vampires based on that goal.That can be said of almost ANY item as everything except armor/weapons automatically changes size. A dispel magic can cause a helm/headband to fall off, gauntlets to slip boots to shrink, rings chop off fingers, ect... No item is exactly your size unless you had it custom made: so you have to note the exact size each and every one of your items was when you got it, because someone might dispel it. That's a rabbit hole best ignored as combat quickly devolves into a battle to see who can disrobe the other side first...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.
LOL There is more than one show like that. ;) It could be an amusing one shot but not something I'd want a campaign based on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The PFS issue is "Gen Con is coming up and people need time for campaign leadership to fully evaluate this FAQ before the convention and rebuild characters after the clarification is issued."
There are actual rules issues with this FAQ as well which require PDT involvement/clarification, which I will succinctly summarize below:
Problem 1: The line about masterwork being multiplied directly contradicts the CRB and Ultimate Equipment. The FAQ does not mention that these lines will be errata'd.
Solution: Either masterwork needs to not be multiplied, or the FAQ needs to mention that the lines about masterwork not being multiplied will receive errata.
Non-issue: Cold iron explicitly states that it doubles the non-masterwork cost (CRB p154, sixth printing). The FAQ gives a general rule. As specific > general, cold iron works as it did before (not doubling the masterwork cost).
Problem 2: The resizing abilities from Pathfinder Player Companion: Giant Hunter's Handbook (the fitting and resizing special abilities, the resize item spell, and the ring of perfect sizing) may allow larger items to be made even cheaper than they were previously, even for typical sizes (i.e. small or medium). For example, a tiny suit of +1 fitting adamantine full plate is (1,500 [full plate] + 15,000 [adamantine heavy armor]) * .5 [tiny] + 1,000 [enhancement bonus] + 2,000 [fitting] = 11,250 gp. Compare to a medium suit of +1 adamantine full plate which is 1,500 + 15,000 + 1,000 + 2,000 = 19,500 gp. You save 8,250 gp by making the tiny suit. The savings get even bigger as you go higher (making tiny armor with fitting for gargantuan/colossal creatures). This is only an issue for expensive materials (such as mithral and adamantine) and even then only on the heavier armors (medium/heavy armor). For less expensive special materials or light armor, tiny fitting armor would end up being more expensive or right in the same ballpark as normal medium/large armor.
Solution: As these abilities come from a Player Companion, there is little the PDT can immediately do about it. However, the PDT can issue FAQs for a Player Companion provided PFS campaign leadership already made a clarification on the topic. As such, I encourage the PDT to collaborate with PFS campaign leadership to create such a clarification on how these should work and then publish it as another FAQ. Possible solutions are to increase the price of fitting and resizing (if we treat it as a continuous resize item by the magic item pricing chart, they'd be +15,000 gp each. However I personally think that's too expensive -- +8,000 seems more right to put it at slightly above a permanent resize item spell), to rule that certain special materials interact poorly with fitting/resizing (so can't put it on mithral/adamantine for example), or to just ignore the "problem" and let people eat cake; GMs who don't like it can rule on it for their table.
Non-issue: I think the resize item spell and the ring of perfect sizing are fine even post-FAQ. While the spell can have permanency cast on it for 7,500 gp, it is still subject to dispelling so "cheating" in cheaper gargantuan/colossal armor that way seems to me like less of an issue. Sure, it's cheaper, but it also has huge downsides.
Note: My personal concern with fitting is that it ends up being cheaper for small/medium armor in certain circumstances. I'm fine with it being cheaper for much larger creatures as it does have its own (albeit minor) downsides. If it were priced to be more expensive than standard gargantuan/colossal prices post-FAQ, then you might as well remove it from the game entirely as it is no longer worth getting. This is why I suggested changing them to +8,000 gp (same price for both, don't see why the weapon one needs to be twice as much as the armor one). This solves the problem for tiny fitting being cheaper than medium, and for most cases makes normal large armor better than tiny fitting as well.
Problem 3: This impacts WBL for PCs with large size (or larger) companions/animals they take around as well as for GMs who want to throw large size (or larger) threats at the PCs and have them wield things with special materials. In the former case, it takes a significantly larger portion of WBL to get incremental stat gains on animals which typically need all the help they can get due to low HP pools. In the latter case, a GM will not be able to make such creatures as threatening as they could before without skewing WBL or coming out with cop-out reasons why they still have the desired stats without having the special materials (or why the PCs can't have item X).
Solution: Reverse the FAQ or revisit the pricing chart for unusual sizes to knock the multipliers down to more reasonable levels. My personal preference is the latter (for example: for humanoids tiny is x1/2, small/medium is x1, large is x1 1/2, huge is x2, gargantuan is x4, colossal is x6; and for nonhumanoids tiny is x1, small/medium is x1 1/2, large is x2, huge is x4, gargantuan is x6, and colossal is x8)
Personal preference: I think the FAQ makes sense (larger things take more of the special material, so they should cost more. Smaller things take less of it, so they should cost less.). As such, I would like to see it maintained. I would just like the rough edges around it to be clarified or addressed somehow.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
A lot of forumgoers and clearly a lot of designers and writers for Pathfinder, too. As toastedamphibian pointed out up above, all printed items that this rule would apply to use the calculation that everybody assumed, i.e. that the cost for masterwork and special material items is never multiplied.
Even the humble Masterwork Cold Iron Longsword as printed in Ultimate Equipment would cost 630 gp under the new rules, but is listed costing 330 gp. Ultimate Equipment, being the newer source, does not state that masterwork cost on Cold Iron items is not multiplied.And I've seen some people state that this FAQ does not apply to the masterwork cost, but it very clearly does. The example stated in the FAQ is about a mithral chain shirt for which we know that "the masterwork cost is included in the prices".
The mithral chain shirt costs 1100 gp, 150 of which is the masterwork cost. If the masterwork cost was not to be multiplied, then a mithral chain shirt for a rune giant would only cost (1100 - 150) * 8 + 150 = 7750 gp rather than 8800 gp. So, by the ruling in the FAQ, the masterwork cost would need to be multiplied which contradicts a lot, including Amiri's gear.
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.
You know a few people in PFS complaining is how Crane Wing got nerfed and rewritten(then rewritten again), right? That's what I've gleaned from looking back at the threads the Devs talked in anyway.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The PFS issue is "Gen Con is coming up and people need time for campaign leadership to fully evaluate this FAQ before the convention and rebuild characters after the clarification is issued."
There are actual rules issues with this FAQ as well which require PDT involvement/clarification, which I will succinctly summarize below:
Problem 1: The line about masterwork being multiplied directly contradicts the CRB and Ultimate Equipment. The FAQ does not mention that these lines will be errata'd.
Solution: Either masterwork needs to not be multiplied, or the FAQ needs to mention that the lines about masterwork not being multiplied will receive errata.Non-issue: Cold iron explicitly states that it doubles the non-masterwork cost (CRB p154, sixth printing). The FAQ gives a general rule. As specific > general, cold iron works as it did before (not doubling the masterwork cost).
Problem 2: The resizing abilities from Pathfinder Player Companion: Giant Hunter's Handbook (the fitting and resizing special abilities, the resize item spell, and the ring of perfect sizing) may allow larger items to be made even cheaper than they were previously, even for typical sizes (i.e. small or medium). For example, a tiny suit of +1 fitting adamantine full plate is (1,500 [full plate] + 15,000 [adamantine heavy armor]) * .5 [tiny] + 1,000 [enhancement bonus] + 2,000 [fitting] = 11,250 gp. Compare to a medium suit of +1 adamantine full plate which is 1,500 + 15,000 + 1,000 + 2,000 = 19,500 gp. You save 8,250 gp by making the tiny suit. The savings get even bigger as you go higher (making tiny armor with fitting for gargantuan/colossal creatures). This is only an issue for expensive materials (such as mithral and adamantine) and even then only on the heavier armors (medium/heavy armor). For less expensive special materials or light armor, tiny fitting armor would end up being more expensive or right in the same ballpark as normal medium/large...
I agree with everything you wrote right up until the personal preference. :P
My personal preference is to call a spade a spade and not mix and match economics with game mechanics.
Sure, it takes 'more material' but that should not make it cost more because the mechanical benefit is identical.
3.5/PF has long confused the two issues. Half the system only cares about mechanical benefit while the other half is trying to do some type of economy. The two do not mesh and should not both be present.
Wealth is a function of power levels...period.
Anything that you might be able to purchase using wealth should be priced according to the power level bonus you gain from it and should not cost more because it is 'bigger but does the same thing as something smaller'. THAT makes no sense for a game mechanic.
You know a few people in PFS complaining is how Crane Wing got nerfed and rewritten(then rewritten again), right? That's what I've gleaned from looking back at the threads the Devs talked in anyway.
LOL yep, after a few changes they finally fixed the actual issue, MoMS monk. That's the problem with linking print runs and errata: maiming ancillary items in an effort to 'bandaid' the issue until the actual issue can be addressed.
I agree with everything you wrote right up until the personal preference. :P
My personal preference is to call a spade a spade and not mix and match economics with game mechanics.
Sure, it takes 'more material' but that should not make it cost more because the mechanical benefit is identical.
3.5/PF has long confused the two issues. Half the system only cares about mechanical benefit while the other half is trying to do some type of economy. The two do not mesh and should not both be present.
Wealth is a function of power levels...period.
Anything that you might be able to purchase using wealth should be priced according to the power level bonus you gain from it and should not cost more because it is 'bigger but does the same thing as something smaller'. THAT makes no sense for a game mechanic.
I agree with you re not mixing economics with game mechanics in general, due to WBL being used as a power cap. However, I also believe that in addition to "bigger stuff uses more material", there are mechanical reasons for why it should cost more on bigger creatures. Bigger creatures receive size bonuses to strength and size penalties to dexterity. This lets them hit harder but also be hit more often. Additionally (completely unrelated to what I just said), additional points of AC have diminishing rewards. It forms a graph where really low and really high AC are flat horizontal lines (representing an addition of +1 AC to be meaningless due to you always being hit except on nat 1, or meaningless due to you always being missed except on nat 20). The middle is a linear section that connects the two (each addition of +1 AC reduces your chances of being hit by 5 percentage points). A large or larger creature with a dex penalty starts lower on the graph than an otherwise equivalent medium or smaller creature. As such, unless they're all the way at the bottom, they get more out of each additional +1 AC than the medium creature does (medium creature hits the cap faster). Due to this, if it were as easy for the large creature to hit the cap as the medium creature can, there are zero downsides for being large. An extra cost is a way to make it less likely for them to reach the AC cap, and therefore maintain the "larger creatures hit harder and are hit more often" mantra. Perhaps you do not agree with this line of reasoning, this is fine and we'll have to respectfully disagree :)
tl;dr even though the mechanical bonuses are the same, bigger things can get potentially more use out of those same mechanical bonuses than smaller things.
Venture-Captain, Nebraska—Omaha
|
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.
Let's face it, PFS drives Pathfinder. That is the intention.
No I am not expecting the design team to remove the FAQ. I am asking for it be suspended pending additional review.
I see the logic of the FAQ. I just think that there may be unintended results (like the apparent stealth errata to the Core and UE books) that should be considered.
Maybe consideration was made of the concerns being presented. But the example provided in FAQ is not well worded and raises a bunch more questions.
|
|
PFS is already OK. There's a rule that you can flag a cronicle as PENDING UPDATE or something like that for a con that comes soon after a rules change and it's saying that the Player didn't have sufficient time to update their character but need to do so after this session (this can be stacked for all of the sessions saying to delay until after this one so you don't need to change until after the con.)
ALSO PFS is the one where they'd say to ignore the FAQ and go back to ambiguity until a different date.
The PDT aren't likely to undo this FAQ.
Problem 2: The resizing abilities from Pathfinder Player Companion: Giant Hunter's Handbook (the fitting and resizing special abilities, the resize item spell, and the ring of perfect sizing) may allow larger items to be made even cheaper than they were previously, even for typical sizes (i.e. small or medium).
If I was a cynical person, I'd think that this errata was a sneaky way to boost sales of Pathfinder Player Companion: Giant Hunter's Handbook as you need the book to use the enchants/items in PFS. :P
|
|
Problem 2: The resizing abilities from Pathfinder Player Companion: Giant Hunter's Handbook (the fitting and resizing special abilities, the resize item spell, and the ring of perfect sizing) may allow larger items to be made even cheaper than they were previously, even for typical sizes (i.e. small or medium).If I was a cynical person, I'd think that this errata was a sneaky way to boost sales of Pathfinder Player Companion: Giant Hunter's Handbook as you need the book to use the enchants/items in PFS. :P
Technically that book was made with this rule pricing in effect. I don't see why people are throwing a fit over that magic ability now and not before. It's always been the best option.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've said this before, but everyone trying to pull the card with "you are using more material, thus you must pay more" needs to stop doing that.
Tiny non-humanoid costs the same as medium humanoid, but weighs 1/10th.
So you only use 1/10th of the material.
Tiny humanoid costs half as medium humanoid, but also only weighs 1/10th.
Still using only 1/10th of the material, but you have to pay as much as a medium creature? Don't non-humanoid bodyshapes have armorsmiths trained in making stuff for them?
Small non-humanoid costs double that of a medium humanoid, but weighs half.
Small humanoid pays the same as medium humanoid but weighs half.
If we go to the bigger ones:
Large humanoid pays double compared to medium humanoid, but also weighs double.
Large non-humanoid pays quaduple, but only weighs double. So you're only using double the material, but you have to pay for quadruple materials.
Huge humanoid is the ones who profit, they pay quadruple compared to medium humanoid, but use quintuple the materials.
Huge non-humanoid pays eight times as much, but for only quintuple the materials.
Gargantuan humanoid pays eight times, but also uses eight times the materials.
Gargantuan non-humanoid pays sixteen times as much, for only eight times as much material. So they pay double for materials.
How about we stop trying to use amount of material used as an argument for paying more for special materials?
I can support paying the weight multiplier for the special material component.
This does not mesh well with the Fitting enchantment, since it'll provide even more benefit on a wealth by level basis, but then again, the Fitting Enchantment is way too cheap, it should be a +2 or +3 equivalent bonus anyway.
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.
The prices for medium and small size creatures would stay the same since there is no multiplier between those sizes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've said this before, but everyone trying to pull the card with "you are using more material, thus you must pay more" needs to stop doing that.
It all breaks down when you can take 1 medium sized adamantine heavy armor and turn it into 2 small sized adamantine heavy armors that each cost the SAME as the original medium set. Adamantine armor + fabricate has ALWAYS been a way to make gp because of that and the FAQ didn't change it. This clearly shows that the game doesn't care even a little bit about realism like 'more material means it costs more'. A simple look at adamantine weapon shows this [an Emei piercer and a longhammer cost the same in adamantine even though there is a 20lb difference in weight].
RedDogMT: While I don't think the new FAQ makes the least bit of sense and directly deviates from the way the game previously worked, I'm happy to use it as/is as it makes almost everything I'd buy with special materials cheaper. My main worry is the fall out as other rules are 'adjusted' by 'the man' to make the FAQ look better.
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?
Armor and weapons dont magically resize unless I am misunderstanding what you are trying to say. If there is an enhancement that does make it resize then the PDT is not going to include it because its not assumed that characters always take the best available option.
Armor and weapons dont magically resize unless I am misunderstanding what you are trying to say. If there is an enhancement that does make it resize then the PDT is not going to include it because its not assumed that characters always take the best available option.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?
I assume any intelligent creature, player, character or NPC is going to use basic math and pick the best option available. When you can save thousands of gp, is someone REALLY going out of their way to pay more? This just seems silly IMO. Getting the most for your gp just makes sense, from an inside AND outside the game perspective.
PS: Fitting is an enchant that only costs +2000gp and lets ANY size person wear the armor. It's cheaper to buy tiny adamantine heavy armor then enchant it with +1 fitting than buy normal, mundane small+ adamantine heavy armor. I don't see why everyone in the game world can't figure that out. As such, I see no reason the PDT wouldn't factor it in.
The biggest problem here is the multiplying of the masterwork components.
I have always multiplied the cost of the base item and then added the masterwork cost.
From a logical perspective it makes sense to multiply the base item in addition to the masterwork component. However, from how the rules are written, and from a point of affordability, which includes equipping enemy NPC's this is not good.
Armor and weapons dont magically resize unless I am misunderstanding what you are trying to say. If there is an enhancement that does make it resize then the PDT is not going to include it because its not assumed that characters always take the best available option.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?I assume any intelligent creature, player, character or NPC is going to use basic math and pick the best option available. When you can save thousands of gp, is someone REALLY going out of their way to pay more? This just seems silly IMO. Getting the most for your gp just makes sense, from an inside AND outside the game perspective.
PS: Fitting is an enchant that only costs +2000gp and lets ANY size person wear the armor. It's cheaper to buy tiny adamantine heavy armor then enchant it with +1 fitting than buy normal, mundane small+ adamantine heavy armor. I don't see why everyone in the game world can't figure that out. As such, I see no reason the PDT wouldn't factor it in.
Because the game world is run in a narrative sense. That is why some monsters that are smaller have vital strike. I trade it out as a GM every time, unless the creature is big enough to make it justifiable.
I do think that many players will just use magic to get around it, which kind of makes it pointless.
PS: I am not defending the ruling. I think it is a bad idea, but I also understand that "not being optimized" is the base assumption from a developer standpoint of NPC's. Also, thanks for he notification about the "fitting" enhancement. I was partially sure that something like that existed, but I never actually went to look for it.
Let's not forget that this is an FAQ, not Errata. As such, the implication is that this is how it has always worked (nevermind all the items and rules about masterwork items that directly contradict this). So, things like the Fitting special ability were presumably written with the pricing rules as presented in the FAQ in mind.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also understand that "not being optimized" is the base assumption from a developer standpoint of NPC's.
The bigger the gulf between 'optimized' and not, the less sense it makes. An NPC that wants adamantine full plate for their horse has the options to either buy +1 fitting tiny full plate for 19500 or buy normal unenchanted adamantine full plate for 66,000. I see the 'normal' option as gimped, not the enchant optimized. The NPC is LITERALLY wasting 46,500 for a less effective option. Now, make that mount a huge elephant and the cost jumped up to 132,000... I HOPE you can see this isn't really an optimization issue but a 100%, totally obvious must get option that any sane player, character, npc, ect would take. Who spends an extra 100,000+ because they are too lazy to 'optimize'?
|
|
I also understand that "not being optimized" is the base assumption from a developer standpoint of NPC's.The bigger the gulf between 'optimized' and not, the less sense it makes. An NPC that wants adamantine full plate for their horse has the options to either buy +1 fitting tiny full plate for 19500 or buy normal unenchanted adamantine full plate for 66,000. I see the 'normal' option as gimped, not the enchant optimized. The NPC is LITERALLY wasting 46,500 for a less effective option. Now, make that mount a huge elephant and the cost jumped up to 132,000... I HOPE you can see this isn't really an optimization issue but a 100%, totally obvious must get option that any sane player, character, npc, ect would take. Who spends an extra 100,000+ because they are too lazy to 'optimize'?
People that only use physical books and don't have the book for fitting. People that have a generous GM that showers them with gold. People that don't think to look for a cheaper magic option and don't follow or post on the boards.
I assume any intelligent creature, player, character or NPC is going to use basic math and pick the best option available.
I feel like every intelligent NPC (including creatures) being aware of every single item, material, enchantment, spell etc. is terribly unrealistic. Player characters get to know everything, because they're special by virtue of being player characters, but if Fritz the Giant on his island has never even heard of the "fitting" enchantment and doesn't know anybody capable of making tiny armor and chooses to opt for regular old metal armor because he doesn't have access to that much adamantine, that's just fine. If Helga the smith is unaware of the fitting enchantment until one of the PCs tells her about it, that's fine too.
This should be how the diagesis should operate to achieve verisimilitude.Most NPCs or antagonists in published material are nowhere near optimized, so we shouldn't make assumptions that they ought to be.
Bigger things being more expensive is intuitive.
Man, I don't envy them making these shots. Stuck trying to maintain somekind of ... progressive status quo with the system.
I also understand that "not being optimized" is the base assumption from a developer standpoint of NPC's.The bigger the gulf between 'optimized' and not, the less sense it makes. An NPC that wants adamantine full plate for their horse has the options to either buy +1 fitting tiny full plate for 19500 or buy normal unenchanted adamantine full plate for 66,000. I see the 'normal' option as gimped, not the enchant optimized. The NPC is LITERALLY wasting 46,500 for a less effective option. Now, make that mount a huge elephant and the cost jumped up to 132,000... I HOPE you can see this isn't really an optimization issue but a 100%, totally obvious must get option that any sane player, character, npc, ect would take. Who spends an extra 100,000+ because they are too lazy to 'optimize'?
It's always an optimization issue.
I see your point, and your "the math says they should do this" is how I feel about other options in the game, but those options are not chosen by NPC's because the game world doesn't care about optimization as much.As an example why give a higher level character a crossbow when they are proficient with a longbow? It just make logical sense to give them the better weapon. There is a long list of "this is a tactically bad(by comparison) decision" that fills NPC stat blocks.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I assume any intelligent creature, player, character or NPC is going to use basic math and pick the best option available.I feel like every intelligent NPC (including creatures) being aware of every single item, material, enchantment, spell etc. is terribly unrealistic. Player characters get to know everything, because they're special by virtue of being player characters, but if Fritz the Giant on his island has never even heard of the "fitting" enchantment and doesn't know anybody capable of making tiny armor and chooses to opt for regular old metal armor because he doesn't have access to that much adamantine, that's just fine. If Helga the smith is unaware of the fitting enchantment until one of the PCs tells her about it, that's fine too.
This should be how the diagesis should operate to achieve verisimilitude.Most NPCs or antagonists in published material are nowhere near optimized, so we shouldn't make assumptions that they ought to be.
Issue is, word of smart things travels FAST! And merchants wanting to make a profit will be making tiny magic armor FAST so as to get all the business.
So sure, some remote island that has never been discovered before might not have it. But anywhere a merchant travels to that could want special stuff will be very aware of it.It's unrealistic to think people will know everything, it's realistic to think people will know everything that is generally useful.
So unless your setting is that fitting has just recently been discovered, it should be fairly widespread knowledge. Like if the people are aware of mithral or adamantine, magic and of full-plate they'll be aware of this magic armor property.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As an example why give a higher level character a crossbow when they are proficient with a longbow?
That a poor example though: It's more like, an NPC wants to buy adamantine armor: with the way the FAQ works, he either has the option to pick up a +1 version or no armor at all because he can't afford it. The difference in price is SO big, it's not the difference between 2 options and one is better but 1 option as the other is too expensive.
Bigger things being more expensive is intuitive.
If that's the case, an adamantine dagger would cost substantially less than an adamantine longhammer...
I feel like every intelligent NPC (including creatures) being aware of every single item, material, enchantment, spell etc. is terribly unrealistic.
I find it odd that someone that's going to spend maybe hundreds of thousands of gp for barding for their elephant isn't going to put a bit of effort into researching his options. It's even MORE likely that an option that's this useful and this cost effecting is going to be well known. You might as well call it 'the save thousands of gp' enchant: it's not something esoteric or hard to figure out: it straight up saves you cash.
PS: I'm most likely to drop out of this as it's been moved to PFS: I'm happy to debate this issue but I don't care about PFS.
Issue is, word of smart things travels FAST! And merchants wanting to make a profit will be making tiny magic armor FAST so as to get all the business.
This was more appropriate back when this was in Rules, but can a medium sized creature even make tiny armor? Manufacturing very small things to a high degree of accuracy is very, very difficult (and probably no small part of the extra cost for getting something made out of special materials is the additional labor involved and expertise needed to work with that material (particularly if it's something dangerous like Viridium).) So it's probably more difficult (though cheaper in materials) for a medium sized smith to make a tiny set of armor than a medium set of armor, or at least it seems like it should be for me. You'd at the very least probably need specialized equipment.
Plus "particularly expensive sets of armor" (e.g. Adamantium Plate) are probably special orders anyway so it's not a huge competitive advantage unless adventurers are most of your business.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Issue is, word of smart things travels FAST! And merchants wanting to make a profit will be making tiny magic armor FAST so as to get all the business.This was more appropriate back when this was in Rules, but can a medium sized creature even make tiny armor? Manufacturing very small things to a high degree of accuracy is very, very difficult (and probably no small part of the extra cost for getting something made out of special materials is the additional labor involved and expertise needed to work with that material (particularly if it's something dangerous like Viridium).) So it's probably more difficult (though cheaper in materials) for a medium sized smith to make a tiny set of armor than a medium set of armor, or at least it seems like it should be for me. You'd at the very least probably need specialized equipment.
Plus "particularly expensive sets of armor" (e.g. Adamantium Plate) are probably special orders anyway so it's not a huge competitive advantage unless adventurers are most of your business.
It's actually easier than medium armor, the difficulty of crafting armor is dependent on AC and tiny armor provides less AC and thus any craftsmith would be faster (cheaper cost means less work needs to be done) and better (easier to hit the DC) at making tiny armor.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
but those options are not chosen by NPC's because the game world doesn't care about optimization as much.
I think it is the authors who don't care, NOT the world.
In world, there is almost no reason for studded leather +1 to exist (mithral is just better). But the authors don't seem to know this.
And the argument "People in world don't know all the options" rapidly falls apart. It just takes one person to realize that mithral is better or resizing adamantine plate is better. They create a company that sells the better, cheaper, stuff. Pretty soon people realize that the stuff is better and cheaper and they dominate the market.
In real life, people care about quality and price to a significant extent. Not totally, of course. But when something is pretty clearly cheaper and better it WILL become the norm.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 8
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
but those options are not chosen by NPC's because the game world doesn't care about optimization as much.
I think it is the authors who don't care, NOT the world.
In world, there is almost no reason for studded leather +1 to exist (mithral is just better). But the authors don't seem to know this.
And the argument "People in world don't know all the options" rapidly falls apart. It just takes one person to realize that mithral is better or resizing adamantine plate is better. They create a company that sells the better, cheaper, stuff. Pretty soon people realize that the stuff is better and cheaper and they dominate the market.
In real life, people care about quality and price to a significant extent. Not totally, of course. But when something is pretty clearly cheaper and better it WILL become the norm.
In real life supply and demand is a thing. Skymetals should theoretically be in short supply, and if demand goes up their price should go up.
I'm not interested in having an economic simulator in Pathfinder or PFS. At some point there needs to be some level of abstraction.
|
Venture-Captain, Nebraska—Omaha
|
So I see this has been placed in the Pathfinder Society area. I don't agree with this being in PFS. The rule in question is not a PFS specific rule. It is a general rule of Pathfinder.
If the admin of the boards feel this is the best place, fine but I disagree and believe this should be in the Rules Forum where I originally posted it.
I ask this be moved back to the Rules Forum
Thank you.
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
So I see this has been placed in the Pathfinder Society area. I don't agree with this being in PFS. The rule in question is not a PFS specific rule. It is a general rule of Pathfinder.
If the admin of the boards feel this is the best place, fine but I disagree and believe this should be in the Rules Forum where I originally posted it.
I ask this be moved back to the Rules Forum
Thank you.
A request to correct the FAQ (remove masterwork from the list of things that are multiplied) would stand in the Rules forum. That is something that should be clarified for everyone.
A need to "suspend" the FAQ exists solely in the context of PFS, though. We do need some guidance from PFS leadership.
|
|
So I see this has been placed in the Pathfinder Society area. I don't agree with this being in PFS. The rule in question is not a PFS specific rule. It is a general rule of Pathfinder.
If the admin of the boards feel this is the best place, fine but I disagree and believe this should be in the Rules Forum where I originally posted it.
I ask this be moved back to the Rules Forum
Thank you.
The FAQ is a general rule and instantly in effect and will be unless revoked permanently by the PDT.
Asking for a temporary suspension of enforcement of this FAQ for PFS because of the CON in a month is a PFS issue. This thread is for PFS.If your thread was a petition to straight up overturn then it would be a rules thread.
|
Venture-Captain, Nebraska—Omaha
|
The FAQ is a general rule and instantly in effect and will be unless revoked permanently by the PDT.
Asking for a temporary suspension of enforcement of this FAQ for PFS because of the CON in a month is a PFS issue. This thread is for PFS.
If your thread was a petition to straight up overturn then it would be a rules thread.
My request was NOT to suspended enforcement of the FAQ for PFS because of the CON. I gave that as a reason.
My request is to suspended the FAQ because I see valid concerns being raised that impact the Pathfinder rule set as a whole.
Is PFS being directly impacted? Yes. But PFS leadership will not ignore a FAQ or rule that has been given by the Paizo leadership.
The decision to suspend pending an additional review is at the game designer level, not the PFS leadership level.
Thus why I believe petition should be in the Rules Forum.
We, as PFS players, need it to be there. Home games can ignore the FAQ. It is highly unlikely that PFS will.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread was moved because the Rules Questions subforum is an inappropriate venue for anything other than asking a rules question in our view. Because the concern is related more heavily towards organized play, we made the decision to move it here. If you want to make a thread regarding the way the FAQ system is managed, Website Feedback is a more appropriate area to post about that.
|
|
The FAQ is a general rule and instantly in effect and will be unless revoked permanently by the PDT.
Asking for a temporary suspension of enforcement of this FAQ for PFS because of the CON in a month is a PFS issue. This thread is for PFS.
If your thread was a petition to straight up overturn then it would be a rules thread.My request was NOT to suspended enforcement of the FAQ for PFS because of the CON. I gave that as a reason.
My request is to suspended the FAQ because I see valid concerns being raised that impact the Pathfinder rule set as a whole.
Is PFS being directly impacted? Yes. But PFS leadership will not ignore a FAQ or rule that has been given by the Paizo leadership.
The decision to suspend pending an additional review is at the game designer level, not the PFS leadership level.
Thus why I believe petition should be in the Rules Forum.
We, as PFS players, need it to be there. Home games can ignore the FAQ. It is highly unlikely that PFS will.
PDT don't have a reason to suspend it. If stuff is in errors they'll deal with that and if they need to revoke the FAQ, they don't take it back when double checking.
Also again, most of the arguments brought up here are ones that existed before, the only difference might be the quantity, but there's nothing that new being discussed (yes the masterwork text being in error is new, but they don't need to take down the FAQ as the write the FAQ/errata that will change that wording), so there's not really anything new to review. They decided that they want this to be the official way it works, regardless of what they've said before and what is printed in books, we've seen this trend from other official statements from them.
There's a VERY VERY slim if any chance that this will get revoked via our complaints. They were prepared for this outlash and can be justified as to why they wanted to move FAQs to Tuesday for this so a mod could shut down threads that were too bad.
So the only hope is a temp non-enforcement period from PFS for PFS, cause like you said, home games don't need to care, and like I say, the PDT have no reason to suspend this rule.
|
|
On the plus side, if PFS leadership says "Hey, this rule doesn't really work for our campaign," that's a pretty good argument to bring back to the PDT/ rules forum to change the FAQ.
I feel this is the flow things will go
maybe not enforce this FAQ until after Gencon, But they'll enforce it and be sure that fitting is useless if legal too.
They'll continue to say that Pregens are special and can break rules for Amiri. Crowe already does with his 25gp armor lv1 that is now like 125gp and Amiri already does with her two combat traits and some of the math on her rage. So nothing that new here.
and that's about it.
All the deliberation is on how and what you can change or retrain for this FAQ.
Like "if you have an affected item sell it for full. If you had armor of a special material that changed the ACP of armor and are a charger mount or have a class feature that reduce armor check penalty like Steelblooded bloodrager, fighter and armor magus ect, can potentially change the archetype. Animal companions that were wearing armor can be swapped for any legal companion. And anything else that might be justified in being changed due to this FAQ."
And then it'll be done, and we'll have lots of unhappy players and unarmored animals.
|
|
I also disagree that this belongs in the PFS forum.
Yes, the *timing* of the change is a problem for PFS, and people have pointed that out. But just because that is also an issue does not mean that this issue is exclusively PFS.
This is a question/request about Pathfinder rules. The request is to suspend (or, ideally, completely remove) the recent FAQ, at the very least to give more time to consider it. Quite a number of issues have arisen with respect to this FAQ that indicate that it really needs to be reevaluated if it's going to be a part of the Pathfinder rules canon. Not because of PFS; because of a number of places in the Core Rulebook and Ultimate Equipment and elsewhere that contradict this ruling, and because of unforseen interactions with other rules. This is a question for the PDT, and as such this belongs in the forum where the PDT (not the PFS leadership) will look at it.
The concern is *not* weighted towards Organized Play. It is a problem in the Pathfinder rules set itself. Please recognize that, even though people have *also* pointed out additional problems for Organized Play.
|
Venture-Captain, Nebraska—Omaha
|
This thread was moved because the Rules Questions subforum is an inappropriate venue for anything other than asking a rules question in our view. Because the concern is related more heavily towards organized play, we made the decision to move it here. If you want to make a thread regarding the way the FAQ system is managed, Website Feedback is a more appropriate area to post about that.
Thank you for the explanation Chris.
|
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The concern is *not* weighted towards Organized Play. It is a problem in the Pathfinder rules set itself. Please recognize that, even though people have *also* pointed out additional problems for Organized Play.
You don't need official word from the PDT to suspend implementing this FAQ in your home game. Everyone would like this FAQ reevaluated. Only PFS players need official word to suspend it.