Petition: Suspend recent FAQ on Cost Multipliers for Items


Pathfinder Society

201 to 250 of 325 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge 5/5

Starfinder Superscriber
KingOfAnything wrote:
Everyone would like this FAQ reevaluated.

Yes. This. That's why this doesn't belong in the PFS forum.

Also, whenever people post a rules question in the PFS forum (on the basis that "home games can house rule it"), they're told that it belongs in the rules forum, not the PFS forum.

This is clearly a rules question, as it's asking for a reevaluation of a FAQ that is really an errata that changes rules and raises a lot of rules confusion.

Venture-Agent, Utah—Provo aka Chess Pwn

1 person marked this as a favorite.

take the flurry and the crane wing examples. Both just stayed there until the new updated re-evaluated answers went live.
That's just how it goes.
So a "suspension" of asking to have it removed while/if they re-evaluate it isn't what the PDT do.

Scarab Sages 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
rknop wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
Everyone would like this FAQ reevaluated.

Yes. This. That's why this doesn't belong in the PFS forum.

Also, whenever people post a rules question in the PFS forum (on the basis that "home games can house rule it"), they're told that it belongs in the rules forum, not the PFS forum.

This is clearly a rules question, as it's asking for a reevaluation of a FAQ that is really an errata that changes rules and raises a lot of rules confusion.

"Everyone" is a strong term.

That being said, website feedback seems to be the wrong place for this thread, because this isn't about how the FAQ system works, but rather a discussion of the FAQ and how it is confusing and errata with no mention of it being errata.

Where should those go?


Tallow wrote:
rknop wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
Everyone would like this FAQ reevaluated.

Yes. This. That's why this doesn't belong in the PFS forum.

Also, whenever people post a rules question in the PFS forum (on the basis that "home games can house rule it"), they're told that it belongs in the rules forum, not the PFS forum.

This is clearly a rules question, as it's asking for a reevaluation of a FAQ that is really an errata that changes rules and raises a lot of rules confusion.

"Everyone" is a strong term.

That being said, website feedback seems to be the wrong place for this thread, because this isn't about how the FAQ system works, but rather a discussion of the FAQ and how it is confusing and errata with no mention of it being errata.

Where should those go?

Regular general discussion maybe?

Scarab Sages 5/5

6 people marked this as a favorite.

What I find ironic, is that people have been clamoring, whining, cajoling, asking, requesting this issue be clarified for years now.

Now that its clarified, people are clamoring, whining, cajoling, asking, and requesting that the answer be rescinded because it wasn't answered in the way they thought it should be.

Venture-Agent, Utah—Provo aka Chess Pwn

rknop wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
Everyone would like this FAQ reevaluated.

Yes. This. That's why this doesn't belong in the PFS forum.

Also, whenever people post a rules question in the PFS forum (on the basis that "home games can house rule it"), they're told that it belongs in the rules forum, not the PFS forum.

This is clearly a rules question, as it's asking for a reevaluation of a FAQ that is really an errata that changes rules and raises a lot of rules confusion.

If the OP has posted just that, a request to re-evaluate the FAQ then I agree it belongs in rules.

But asking for a suspension, and one reason for that being PFS's big con, isn't a rules question. PDT don't do "suspensions" of FAQs, so PFS is the only one able to do a suspension. And thus the PFS forum.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

So how much does a large cold iron longsword cost now? 60gp? 45gp?

Venture-Agent, Utah—Provo aka Chess Pwn

Tallow wrote:

What I find ironic, is that people have been clamoring, whining, cajoling, asking, requesting this issue be clarified for years now.

Now that its clarified, people are clamoring, whining, cajoling, asking, and requesting that the answer be rescinded because it wasn't answered in the way they thought it should be.

I believe most are

Expressing how this doesn't seem to fit within the rules system.
How there are items that should be addressed that don't fit with the clarification.

Sure there are some that are hopeful that such hurdles will cause the PDT to change the rules.
But there are a good amount that are fine with getting cheaper armor via magic.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Long ago, I cared about Pathfinder but I am finding that Paizo is turning into WotC (who I swore never to spend a dime on ever again).

It isn't just this FAQ (which is easily ignored) but the long progression of Paizo moving towards what I disliked so much in WotC, A game publishing company that really does not appear to discuss things with it's players nor care what they think.

I understand how we got here. Devs used to interact with us, but a number of negative interactions burned them out and then there were contradictions between the Devs opinions and the FAQs that people freaked out about.

This latest FAQ is just one of many in a line that does not make sense and rather than discuss with us the ramifications we are left in silence other than to be told this is not a rule problem when it clearly is (because the FAQ directly contradicts the rules).

It is that last part that bugs me so much. Being left in silence, fine, it happens (too often). But told this is not a rules problem? Might as well tell us you don't care.

Paizo continues to publish splatbook after splatbook but the core element of the game is a mess and the FAQs are only making it worse. They used to be better, they used to make sense.

What is happening to you Paizo? Do you really want to turn into WotC?

I don't make these comments lightly, I don't normally express opinions other than regarding the rules themselves. But perhaps Paizo will notice (I doubt it though).

Grand Lodge 5/5 ⦵⦵⦵ Venture-Captain, Online—PbP aka Hmm

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Gauss --

I can see why you might feel that way. I too miss having Mark, John and Linda as regular voices on here. But I don't think that they have been driven away from the forums so much as that they are all currently swamped with GenCon, PFS Season 9 and the Starfinder Launch.

As for the question of whether Paizo staff will notice... Of course they will. They read just about every post we make, even if they don't have the time right now to respond. Having met most of them at PaizoCon, I know that they are passionate about the games they design, and passionate about the greater Paizo Community.

Don't write them off just yet!

Yours,
Hmm

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

9 people marked this as a favorite.

I was very put off by the title of this thread, which (up until a second ago) was "PETITION: Suspend recent FAQ on Cost Multipliers for Items" (with "petition" in all caps).

First of all, all-caps shouting is something I generally find unpleasant, and I regularly downcase that sort of thing without comment as I peruse the boards.

Second, the word "PETITION" is a bit of an insult to me, as it's a very one-sided term. The implication is "I INSIST YOU DO WHAT I SAY!" I personally do not respond well to that, and I would not blame the PFS team if they were to respond to that with distaste either. On the other hand, you will find that we at Paizo do respond well to reasoned discussion.

If this thread title had been "Discussion: Suspend recent FAQ on Cost Multipliers for Items," I would approach this thread in a much better mood than I am currently.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento aka FLite

KingOfAnything wrote:
rknop wrote:
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.

You do if you are a player and the GM goes strictly by the FAQ. But then asking Paizo to override your GM seems a little much...

Scarab Sages 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vic Wertz wrote:

I was very put off by the title of this thread, which (up until a second ago) was "PETITION: Suspend recent FAQ on Cost Multipliers for Items" (with "petition" in all caps).

First of all, all-caps shouting is something I generally find unpleasant, and I regularly downcase that sort of thing without comment as I peruse the boards.

Second, the word "PETITION" is a bit of an insult to me, as it's a very one-sided term. The implication is "I INSIST YOU DO WHAT I SAY!" I personally do not respond well to that, and I would not blame the PFS team if they were to respond to that with distaste either. On the other hand, you will find that we at Paizo do respond well to reasoned discussion.

If this thread title had been "Discussion: Suspend recent FAQ on Cost Multipliers for Items," I would approach this thread in a much better mood than I am currently.

This is good advise for how to communicate a desire in a way that will get maximum ears.

Now how do we ensure that the correct ears see this thread? Because it isn't really the PFS team that needs to see it. Its the PDT team that needs to see it. Because the FAQ makes some changes to existing rules that have become really unclear.

How do we get a response from the PDT team on how to handle these additional questions?

Silver Crusade 3/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Online—PbP aka Redelia

Tallow wrote:
Vic Wertz wrote:

I was very put off by the title of this thread, which (up until a second ago) was "PETITION: Suspend recent FAQ on Cost Multipliers for Items" (with "petition" in all caps).

First of all, all-caps shouting is something I generally find unpleasant, and I regularly downcase that sort of thing without comment as I peruse the boards.

Second, the word "PETITION" is a bit of an insult to me, as it's a very one-sided term. The implication is "I INSIST YOU DO WHAT I SAY!" I personally do not respond well to that, and I would not blame the PFS team if they were to respond to that with distaste either. On the other hand, you will find that we at Paizo do respond well to reasoned discussion.

If this thread title had been "Discussion: Suspend recent FAQ on Cost Multipliers for Items," I would approach this thread in a much better mood than I am currently.

This is good advise for how to communicate a desire in a way that will get maximum ears.

Now how do we ensure that the correct ears see this thread? Because it isn't really the PFS team that needs to see it. Its the PDT team that needs to see it. Because the FAQ makes some changes to existing rules that have become really unclear.

How do we get a response from the PDT team on how to handle these additional questions?

We start another thread in rules politely asking for clarification about the places where the FAQ seems to contradict written rules. We include specific examples with page numbers. We make no mention of PFS in that thread. And we very nicely ask those community members who are too angry to post politely to post in a different thread.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Should have known it was going to be a doozy when they moved the faq to Tuesday...

The reason for moving FAQ-related updates earlier in the week isn't related to the content. It's because updating on Friday meant we weren't in the office to read, evaluate, and respond to discussion for a few days. Now, I'm not saying that posting on Tuesday means that we will respond to all concerns on Wednesday (that "evaluate" step may take a while), but at least we can get the ball rolling sooner.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Vic Wertz wrote:

I was very put off by the title of this thread, which (up until a second ago) was "PETITION: Suspend recent FAQ on Cost Multipliers for Items" (with "petition" in all caps).

First of all, all-caps shouting is something I generally find unpleasant, and I regularly downcase that sort of thing without comment as I peruse the boards.

Second, the word "PETITION" is a bit of an insult to me, as it's a very one-sided term. The implication is "I INSIST YOU DO WHAT I SAY!" I personally do not respond well to that, and I would not blame the PFS team if they were to respond to that with distaste either. On the other hand, you will find that we at Paizo do respond well to reasoned discussion.

If this thread title had been "Discussion: Suspend recent FAQ on Cost Multipliers for Items," I would approach this thread in a much better mood than I am currently.

Thank you for your time looking at this, Vic.

Got to agree with you - I saw the word "petition", snorted and thought "well, that's sure not going to get on anyone's nerves", and decided to not throw in my own thoughts on the issue.

Also agree that this is a PFS issue - it could affect OP games at GenCon, so trying to suspend the issue until then could be a good idea.

And lastly, while I absolutely get where the design team are coming from with this FAQ, it has knock-on effects that seem to have been "ignored" or "forgotten" or "become victims of the law of unintended consequences", and having some means to discuss those consequences and whether they were factored into the FAQ decision feels like it would be a useful thing.

There's a lot of heat around this issue, and it's easy to forget that companies can't turn on a dime, can't make snap decisions with long-term impact, and need time to discuss things.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Tallow wrote:

Now how do we ensure that the correct ears see this thread? Because it isn't really the PFS team that needs to see it. Its the PDT team that needs to see it. Because the FAQ makes some changes to existing rules that have become really unclear.

How do we get a response from the PDT team on how to handle these additional questions?

Both teams need to evaluate this, and discussion right here is the best place to ensure that both teams will.


graystone wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
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.

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.

It wasn't meant to be the "end all be all" of examples. I was just making a point that many times the obviously lesser option is chosen.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Superscriber
Tallow wrote:

What I find ironic, is that people have been clamoring, whining, cajoling, asking, requesting this issue be clarified for years now.

Now that its clarified, people are clamoring, whining, cajoling, asking, and requesting that the answer be rescinded because it wasn't answered in the way they thought it should be.

The problem is that it has not been clarified. It has been muddied. The FAQ raises more questions than it answers. There are things all over the place that suggest that you shouldn't add Masterwork before multiplying for size, but the FAQ seemingly contradicts that. Is it supposed to errata all that text? We don't know. This is an FAQ, right, not an errata? And, what about the rules interactions, the ways to resize things, that are now open for abuse which weren't previously open for abuse

Clarification has not happened.


Paul Jackson wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

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.

Since the authors decide how the world works there it is the same thing.

Anything else is just semantics unless you completely missed my point.


Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:

Gauss --

I can see why you might feel that way. I too miss having Mark, John and Linda as regular voices on here. But I don't think that they have been driven away from the forums so much as that they are all currently swamped with GenCon, PFS Season 9 and the Starfinder Launch.

As for the question of whether Paizo staff will notice... Of course they will. They read just about every post we make, even if they don't have the time right now to respond. Having met most of them at PaizoCon, I know that they are passionate about the games they design, and passionate about the greater Paizo Community.

Don't write them off just yet!

Yours,
Hmm

This thread was in the rules forum, it was only just recently moved to the PFS forum, thereby relegating it to the 'it only applies to PFS' crowd of which I am not a part of.

I am talking about the rules Devs, not the PFS Paizo employees.

As anyone who participates on the rules forum can tell you, I try to keep my discussions on Pathfinder limited to discussing the rules. This is not a case of me being upset over this one instance.

For a couple years now Paizo has been going down this path and I am about done going with them.

I want the Paizo I loved when I first moved from 3.5 to Pathfinder, the one where Devs (not PFS Devs which I am not a part of, but the rules Devs) interact with the player base and work collectively towards a better understanding of the rules and the game.

Not this 'we will issue rulings and then comment no more about it and if you don't like it tough, we will send your threads off into the realm of nobody cares'.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tallow wrote:

What I find ironic, is that people have been clamoring, whining, cajoling, asking, requesting this issue be clarified for years now.

Now that its clarified, people are clamoring, whining, cajoling, asking, and requesting that the answer be rescinded because it wasn't answered in the way they thought it should be.

I REALLY shouldn't have to explain this, but obviously I do so I will.

Yes people asked for this to be clarified, but the intent(even if it was not directly stated) was to do so in a manner that made sense when matched up with the writing in the book.

The ruling goes against the book, so people are not satisfied.

Sure if they just wanted the PDT to say something(any random answer) then any random answer would suffice.

My question to you is, "Why would you expect for people to be happy about a contradicting answer?".

Does waiting for a long time justify results that are not satisfactory?

Yes, those are serious questions, and not hyperbole.

Liberty's Edge 3/5 Venture-Captain, Nebraska—Omaha

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Wertz wrote:

I was very put off by the title of this thread, which (up until a second ago) was "PETITION: Suspend recent FAQ on Cost Multipliers for Items" (with "petition" in all caps).

First of all, all-caps shouting is something I generally find unpleasant, and I regularly downcase that sort of thing without comment as I peruse the boards.

Second, the word "PETITION" is a bit of an insult to me, as it's a very one-sided term. The implication is "I INSIST YOU DO WHAT I SAY!" I personally do not respond well to that, and I would not blame the PFS team if they were to respond to that with distaste either. On the other hand, you will find that we at Paizo do respond well to reasoned discussion.

If this thread title had been "Discussion: Suspend recent FAQ on Cost Multipliers for Items," I would approach this thread in a much better mood than I am currently.

Vic,

As the OP for thread I want to take a moment to offer a sincere apology to you and the staff of Paizo if my post was offensive in any way. A lesson is learned today, I assure you. I NEVER intended to offend. I took great pains (or so I thought) to not insist on immediately reversing the FAQ. My effort was to have a place for people to have a reasoned discussion. I did capitalize word "petition" only to draw attention, not use it as a club or laser cannon.

What I do is a hobby. One I enjoy greatly. I care about what is happening in the game and desire to make it better in whatever small way that I can. Reading other threads on this topic I saw, what appears to me, good reasons to ask for a suspension. So I started this thread.

I know the posters on this (and likely every) board can be a bit snide, go off topic, and at times be nasty. I personally stride to not to do that. At times I do.

Please don't let my choice of how I structured the title of this thread keep you from giving it fair consideration. There are good posts within this thread that present valid concerns about the FAQ.

And for the record, I agree with most of the FAQ. There are just a few areas that appear to me (someone with no inside knowledge at all) to be unintended consequences.

Again, I apologize.

Sincerely,

Gary Bush

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Appreciated, Gary!

Grand Lodge 5/5 ⦵⦵⦵ Venture-Captain, Online—PbP aka Hmm

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Wertz wrote:

Second, the word "PETITION" is a bit of an insult to me, as it's a very one-sided term. The implication is "I INSIST YOU DO WHAT I SAY!" I personally do not respond well to that, and I would not blame the PFS team if they were to respond to that with distaste either. On the other hand, you will find that we at Paizo do respond well to reasoned discussion.

If this thread title had been "Discussion: Suspend recent FAQ on Cost Multipliers for Items," I would approach this thread in a much better mood than I am currently.

Vic,

Thank you so much for coming by this thread! It's always great having you share your insights with us. However, may I disagree with you about the word, "Petition?"

Merriam Webster wrote:
Definition of petition. 1 : an earnest request : entreaty. 2a : a formal written request made to an official person or organized body (such as a court)b : a document embodying such a formal written request. 3 : something asked or requested.

I don't see the term as a demand, but as a request. I've used it on these forums many times to request that the PFS staff reconsider that certain things be included in the AR. I have always tried to be thoughtful about its use, and I am concerned that the word is seen in such an abrasive light.

That was not my intent, nor Gary's.

Thoughtfully yours,
Hmm

Scarab Sages 5/5

wraithstrike wrote:
Tallow wrote:

What I find ironic, is that people have been clamoring, whining, cajoling, asking, requesting this issue be clarified for years now.

Now that its clarified, people are clamoring, whining, cajoling, asking, and requesting that the answer be rescinded because it wasn't answered in the way they thought it should be.

I REALLY shouldn't have to explain this, but obviously I do so I will.

Yes people asked for this to be clarified, but the intent(even if it was not directly stated) was to do so in a manner that made sense when matched up with the writing in the book.

The ruling goes against the book, so people are not satisified.

Sure if they just wanted the PDT to say something(any random answer) then any random answer would suffice.

My question to you is, "Why would you expect for people to be happy about a contradicting answer?".

Does waiting for a long time justify results that are not satisfactory?

Yes, those are serious questions, and not hyperbole.

The only part of the answer that is contradictory and needs response sooner than later is the masterwork and possibly cold iron part.

The part I was referring to, that seems to have the largest outcry, is when the multiplication happens. And you can't say that making a mithril barding for a large set of armor more expensive doesn't make sense, when there are plenty of people that have always interpreted it that way anyways.

EDIT: The fact this was a contentious FAQ question, that eventually got answered, means that the correct answer wasn't clear cut. Unless people who asked or clicked FAQ on this topic did so for the sole purpose of making the PDT team prove those disagreeing with them wrong.

Sovereign Court 3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I think there may be a difference between the Rules forum and the PFS forum. A "petition" has very different contexts in each.

Grand Lodge 5/5 ⦵⦵⦵ Venture-Captain, Online—PbP aka Hmm

KingOfAnything wrote:
I think there may be a difference between the Rules forum and the PFS forum. A "petition" has very different contexts in each.

Interesting. I don't frequent the rules forum, so was unaware of the context. Is the usage there more as Vic describes? If so, that might explain the disconnect that we're experiencing over terminology.

Hmm

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

5 people marked this as a favorite.

It's not about forum placement or the dictionary definition of the word—it's about the connotation that arrives with it: "If I get enough people behind me, you must listen to me!" In this context, it's faulty in both directions: one person standing alone may be listened to if their reasoning is solid, while a multitude won't get their way if our designers don't agree.

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

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't see the term "petition" in the rules forum all that much. It's mostly a PFS thing, like "petition to have AR reconsidered for X". In the rules forum titles often start with "FAQ needed (because surely I'm the first one to discover this)" :P

---

More seriously, this is an FAQ that causes a lot of side effects - like reconsidering Fitting armor enchantment - and implementing it affects a LOT of players (anyone with a Large animal companion or masterwork cold iron weapon).

I think the petition makes sense: either hash out the entire issue, or don't do it at all. Don't leave it half-solved just before a major convention.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
I think there may be a difference between the Rules forum and the PFS forum. A "petition" has very different contexts in each.

Interesting. I don't frequent the rules forum, so was unaware of the context. Is the usage there more as Vic describes? If so, that might explain the disconnect that we're experiencing over terminology.

Hmm

The context is that this is a rules FAQ that directly contradicts rules in the book without stating that it is also an Errata.

Regardless of the phrasing of the title, there are serious questions that will need their own FAQ or something.

Killing an entire thread (which is what moving it to PFS is effectively doing) does not negate the problem and does a disservice to the many people who have responded.

If Paizo doesn't like the title, my suggestion would be to change the title rather than kill a thread that is already on its 200th+ post.

Scarab Sages 5/5

Lau Bannenberg wrote:

I don't see the term "petition" in the rules forum all that much. It's mostly a PFS thing, like "petition to have AR reconsidered for X". In the rules forum titles often start with "FAQ needed (because surely I'm the first one to discover this)" :P

---

More seriously, this is an FAQ that causes a lot of side effects - like reconsidering Fitting armor enchantment - and implementing it affects a LOT of players (anyone with a Large animal companion or masterwork cold iron weapon).

I think the petition makes sense: either hash out the entire issue, or don't do it at all. Don't leave it half-solved just before a major convention.

I think part of the issue of which forum this should be posted in, and who needs to respond, is the confusion as to what the OP was wanting and whether the OP understands who makes decisions about what things.

1) Petitioning the PFS leadership to hold off implementation until clarification is a good idea. If this was the sole intent of the OP, then this forum is the right place.

2) Petitioning the PDT team to rescind the FAQ is probably not going to happen. However, discussing on the FAQ for this issue, why there are still clarification issues that need to be resolved should be in the rules forum.

That all being said, this FAQ wasn't very well thought out or constructed for implications throughout the rules set.

Sovereign Court 3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Gauss wrote:
Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
I think there may be a difference between the Rules forum and the PFS forum. A "petition" has very different contexts in each.
Interesting. I don't frequent the rules forum, so was unaware of the context. Is the usage there more as Vic describes? If so, that might explain the disconnect that we're experiencing over terminology.

Killing an entire thread (which is what moving it to PFS is effectively doing) does not negate the problem and does a disservice to the many people who have responded.

If Paizo doesn't like the title, my suggestion would be to change the title rather than kill a thread that is already on its 200th+ post.

The thread about Repercussions in PFS is sitting at 200+ posts as well. Moving to the PFS forum is not killing a thread.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vic Wertz wrote:
It's not about forum placement or the dictionary definition of the word—it's about the connotation that arrives with it: "If I get enough people behind me, you must listen to me!" In this context, it's faulty in both directions: one person standing alone may be listened to if their reasoning is solid, while a multitude won't get their way if our designers don't agree.

I think you need more than merely a rationale, no matter how rock solid, to try to get a rule changed. You have to show that there are enough people that feel the same way.

Grand Lodge 5/5 ⦵⦵⦵ Venture-Captain, Online—PbP aka Hmm

Vic Wertz wrote:
It's not about forum placement or the dictionary definition of the word—it's about the connotation that arrives with it: "If I get enough people behind me, you must listen to me!" In this context, it's faulty in both directions: one person standing alone may be listened to if their reasoning is solid, while a multitude won't get their way if our designers don't agree.

Fair enough. I shall abstain from using the term 'petition' in future requests.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
I think you need more than merely a rationale, no matter how rock solid, to try to get a rule changed. You have to show that there are enough people that feel the same way.

Actually, I agree with Vic on this one. One well-reasoned voice can make a huge difference -- though it helps to show that you are not the only one negatively impacted.


I agree with the idea of removing masterwork from the multiplied cost.

However, they also need to update material costs, so that materials costs are by weight and not a general price for everything

3/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:
Gauss wrote:
Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
I think there may be a difference between the Rules forum and the PFS forum. A "petition" has very different contexts in each.
Interesting. I don't frequent the rules forum, so was unaware of the context. Is the usage there more as Vic describes? If so, that might explain the disconnect that we're experiencing over terminology.

Killing an entire thread (which is what moving it to PFS is effectively doing) does not negate the problem and does a disservice to the many people who have responded.

If Paizo doesn't like the title, my suggestion would be to change the title rather than kill a thread that is already on its 200th+ post.

The thread about Repercussions in PFS is sitting at 200+ posts as well. Moving to the PFS forum is not killing a thread.

I think the point is more that after years and years of people being shoed out of PFS threads when posting things that don't apply to PFS, many people who are not involved in PFS (which is likely a far greater # than those who are) would not bother to respond or continue to follow the thread assuming that it would have nothing to do with the way their games would operate as it is in a PFS (ie Paizo House Rules Campaign) thread.

4/5

I am against this rule change because it seems unneeded. I never knew there was a problem related to this. When it comes to PFS, I certainly do not want to go through my 20 some characters and adjust the many who carry masterwork or magic cold iron, silvered, and adamantine weapons.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lau Bannenberg wrote:
I don't see the term "petition" in the rules forum all that much. It's mostly a PFS thing, like "petition to have AR reconsidered for X". In the rules forum titles often start with "FAQ needed (because surely I'm the first one to discover this)"

Yeah, I had not previously encountered "PETITION" in a thread title in the rules forum and was puzzled by this thread because I figured a "petition" in the context of the rules forum was "the FAQ button". I was genuinely confused as to what a rules forum petition would even mean, honestly. There was an official post from long ago that asked not to post rules threads prefaced by "FAQ REQUEST" or similar, but that seems to no longer be the culture of the place.

I guess that makes sense because the Rules Forum cleaves fairly neatly into "I don't understand this rule, someone please explain it to me" and "this is an ambiguous rules situation where an FAQ might apply." You can generally spot the latter because they have 100+ posts rather than like 6 though ;)

As for the actual ruling, the only issues I have with it are the fitting/resizing conundrum (which you could just ban those if needed and lose very little) and the fact that "the masterwork modifier is also multiplied" seems inconsistent with published material.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:
Gauss wrote:
Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
I think there may be a difference between the Rules forum and the PFS forum. A "petition" has very different contexts in each.
Interesting. I don't frequent the rules forum, so was unaware of the context. Is the usage there more as Vic describes? If so, that might explain the disconnect that we're experiencing over terminology.

Killing an entire thread (which is what moving it to PFS is effectively doing) does not negate the problem and does a disservice to the many people who have responded.

If Paizo doesn't like the title, my suggestion would be to change the title rather than kill a thread that is already on its 200th+ post.

The thread about Repercussions in PFS is sitting at 200+ posts as well. Moving to the PFS forum is not killing a thread.

It is when it is a rules forum thread. It has effectively killed it as such. Many people (such as myself) do not touch PFS.

In fact, the only way I even knew if had been moved is that I hit focus and saw it, it wasn't in the rules forum where I expected it.

So, anyone frequenting the rules forum will miss this thread and as such both the content and the focus will change. Again, effectively killing it as a rules thread.

Sczarni 5/5 ⦵⦵

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
So how much does a large cold iron longsword cost now? 60gp? 45gp?

*attempts to re-rail the discussion back to its original topic*

Ravingdork asked a solid question here.

In Pathfinder, it is explained that when there are multiple multipliers, you add them. You don't continue multiplying. A charging Lance Crit is x4, not x6, for example.

So is a large (x2 multiplier) cold iron (x2 multiplier) longsword (15gp) priced at 45gp? Or 60gp?

Sczarni 5/5 ⦵⦵

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Also, I already created a thread about this in the PFS Forum asking Campaign Leadership to evaluate the repercussions of new FAQ. I disagree that this thread should have been moved, because it targeted different audiences.

Scarab Sages 4/5

willuwontu wrote:

I agree with the idea of removing masterwork from the multiplied cost.

However, they also need to update material costs, so that materials costs are by weight and not a general price for everything

I pointed this out somewhere. I don't remember which thread it was in. If they update all costs to be based on weight, a lot of medium items will become much more expensive. They'd also need to take a look at how much the special materials cost per pound.

Light Mithral Armor adds +1,000gp currently. A Medium (or Small) Mithral Chain Shirt costs 1,100gp.

Mithral costs 250gp per pound. A Medium Chain Shirt weighs 25 pounds. Calculating by weight, a Medium Mithral Chain Shirt would cost 250x25+100 = 6,350gp. I'm not sure people would be happy with that, either. Even if you change the rule to be based off the final weight, and not the original weight, it would be 250x12.5+100 = 3,225gp, or nearly 3 times what it costs today.

Venture-Agent, Utah—Provo aka Chess Pwn

3 people marked this as a favorite.

See I always saw petition as a way to get common voices together, not to bully the leadership to doing something, but a way to get a unified focussed voice to voice an opinion and to propose a certain desired outcome. Everyone knows that you could have a petition with everyone agreeing and hundreds of people and not get the request granted.

Like would a thread titled "Thread to have everyone share why this FAQ should be rescinded" or the likes have come across any differently?

Discussion seems wrong since we don't get any input from the people who write the FAQs, the DEVS, thus there's no back and forth, no ability for discussion to actually happen, so petition or the likes seems correct since it's just trying to garner support for a view. A petition or request is how it seems our relationship with the PDT is. We just throw our voice at them and then wait to see what happens.

I'm quite curious as to why you have such a critical and negative view about this word choice.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:


Actually, I agree with Vic on this one. One well-reasoned voice can make a huge difference -- though it helps to show that you are not the only one negatively impacted.

And I have to go with the evidence. When it comes to getting a dev response a big discussion works wonders, almost to the point that its necessary. This goes double for appealing a ruling. The monk flurry and 10 foot reach exception overturns both had a large number of posters behind them. It doesn't matter how good an argument is if no one sees it, and I don't think either of those arguments had anything new introduced besides the lack of support that they had among the fanbase.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Superscriber

Wait... was the 10-foot reach exception overturned?


Nefreet wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
So how much does a large cold iron longsword cost now? 60gp? 45gp?

*attempts to re-rail the discussion back to its original topic*

Ravingdork asked a solid question here.

In Pathfinder, it is explained that when there are multiple multipliers, you add them. You don't continue multiplying. A charging Lance Crit is x4, not x6, for example.

So is a large (x2 multiplier) cold iron (x2 multiplier) longsword (15gp) priced at 45gp? Or 60gp?

Good point. I think we need this to be redone in the rules section.

Other than the issue contradition with the FAQ about the masterwork components not being increased based on the size of the creature did anything else contradict the book?

I want to make an FAQ, and cover any disagreements between the current FAQ, and the words in the book.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

rknop wrote:
Wait... was the 10-foot reach exception overturned?

There was some virtual 5 and a half foot squares or something there for a little while...


wraithstrike wrote:


Other than the issue contradition with the FAQ about the masterwork components not being increased based on the size of the creature did anything else contradict the book?

I want to make an FAQ, and cover any disagreements between the current FAQ, and the words in the book.

Masterwork cost for cold iron is not doubled (CRB pg 154)

Paizo Employee Official Rules Response

30 people marked this as a favorite.

The FAQ has received an official adjustment. The answer now reads:

FAQ wrote:
First add up the total cost of the base item, including any special material. Then multiply by any multiplier for the size and unusual shape from Table 6-8. After that, add any additional cost for masterwork, if that isn't already part of the special material. Finally, apply any multiplier for discounts such as the 1/3 cost multiplier for crafting the item. For example, a chain shirt costs 100 gp and a mithral chain shirt costs 1,100 gp after the +1,000 gp cost for mithral. If you were applying the 1/3 cost multiplier for crafting the item using the Craft skill, the cost multiplier from Table 6-8 based on size and body type, or both, you would apply those multipliers to the full 1,100 gp cost for the mithral chain shirt. This means a mithral chain shirt built for a rune giant costs 8,800 gp and a mithral chain shirt built for the tarrasque costs 35,200 gp. On the other hand, a Large masterwork cold iron greatsword costs 500 gp (50 gp for a greatsword, doubled for cold iron, doubled again for a Large weapon, then adding masterwork last because cold iron isn't always masterwork).

201 to 250 of 325 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Petition: Suspend recent FAQ on Cost Multipliers for Items All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.