Petition: Suspend recent FAQ on Cost Multipliers for Items


Pathfinder Society

251 to 300 of 325 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge 5/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

7 people 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 don't think that is fair to the OP unless you read intent into the text which as we all know is problematic in written communication. While a single person may posit solid reasoning, if a large group with similar opinions ban together, it shows to those in control that the problem isn't just an issue for one person, it is widespread. That certainly does not mean you are "forced" or "required" to act on the commentary, but it certainly gives insight into the scope of the issue at hand. Think of it like play-testing. The larger the scope of the feedback the better the results.

Scarab Sages 5/5

I think that clears up the issues.

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

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Design Team wrote:

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).

Thank you for the update. I 100% support this FAQ.

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

Gary Bush wrote:
Pathfinder Design Team wrote:

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).

Thank you for the update. I 100% support this FAQ.

I am happy with this version.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

Thats a bit of legalese... did anything change besides cold iron and masterwork big stuff?

Scarab Sages 5/5

Nope, but that was the only issues contradicting previously printed rules.

Paizo Employee Lead Designer

18 people marked this as a favorite.

Sorry about the muddled ruling here folks. With the number of books, FAQs, updates, and other rulings that we've made over the years, it has become easy for us to contradict ourselves, especially when some of our philosophy on those rules have changed over the years. We endeavor to have a tight ship on these things, but mistakes happen.

Hope we didn't cause too much heartburn...

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Starfinder Superscriber

It fixes most of the issues; it fixes the bad problems, which were inconsistency with the CRB and UE.

There remain exploits with Fitting armor and such. For home games, you can go with a usual "don't be cheesy" rule. PFS will probably need to disallow Fitting. ("Don't be cheesy" would contradict the play style of too many players to be viable there....)

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

Thank you, Jason, for your gracious response to the problem, despite the rather negative tone of some posts about it.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Sorry about the muddled ruling here folks. With the number of books, FAQs, updates, and other rulings that we've made over the years, it has become easy for us to contradict ourselves, especially when some of our philosophy on those rules have changed over the years. We endeavor to have a tight ship on these things, but mistakes happen.

Hope we didn't cause too much heartburn...

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

Thanks for clearing things up in a quick and polite manner. We appreciate your efforts to keep the rule system clean and functional.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I can understand why you get charged more for special material armor because it's big: The cloud giants 50 pound adamantine sword is going to have to pay for 150 years of an entire dwarven mining output. (or as dwarves call it, something they slapped together in a hurry)

I am completely at a loss to understand why the mithral costs more because it's been hammered into horse armor instead of human armor. You already pay the smith extra for dealing with a horse.

3/5

Yes the multiplying of the special material cost by the unusual shape makes no sense. If you want to try and logic that out then you have to assume that for a normal shape medium creature that part of the special material cost is for it being harder to work, but if that's the case then only a portion of the cost should be multiplied for shape, and a portion multiplied for size. Since that's a ridiculous process, it just shouldn't be done.

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

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Sorry about the muddled ruling here folks. With the number of books, FAQs, updates, and other rulings that we've made over the years, it has become easy for us to contradict ourselves, especially when some of our philosophy on those rules have changed over the years. We endeavor to have a tight ship on these things, but mistakes happen.

Hope we didn't cause too much heartburn...

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

Jason,

Thank you for the quick review of the concerns expressed in this post on the FAQ and making the adjustment that was made. I know the design team has a lot on their plate. This gives the PFS players better clarity.

Scarab Sages 5/5

Two things:

Simple. People were decrying the original ruling making things too complicated. If you treat different multipliers differently, then that adds an unnecessary level of complication.

Shape requires more material because the shapes have larger places to cover. And realistically, it's more likely to require more attempts to make the odd pieces.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Hutchins wrote:
I'm quite curious as to why you have such a critical and negative view about this word choice.

For those who don't think "petition" and "demand" go hand-in-hand, I'll just point out that in Merriam-Webster—the same source that Hmm quoted the definition from—the first example usage provided for petition is this: "They collected 2,000 signatures on a petition demanding that women be allowed to join the club."

But at this point, everybody reading this thread knows where I'm coming from, and where Gary was coming from in the original post; I've got no hard feelings, and suggest we move on.

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

Vic Wertz wrote:
But at this point, everybody reading this thread knows where I'm coming from, and where Gary was coming from in the original post; I've got no hard feelings, and suggest we move on.

I agree. We all have better things to do than to continue this discussion now that it has been reconsidered, which is all I was asking for.


Phew. Vindication!

I'm glad that my thoughts on masterwork materials not be included in the price until last were indeed correct. It needed exactly what I said, just a better wording but the materials part made sense.

Otherwise that one spell to make things masterwork for a flat fee was like.. yikes.

Hopefully this helps alleviate the frustration felt by..well hell everyone really.

I will say thank you to the OP for being sincere in the apology for coming off perhaps too strong. That was good of you to do. I think it helped settle a lot of emotional turmoil.

Thanks to everyone involved in making this choice and for those on every side for doing a bit of research to make a case.

Shadow Lodge 5/5

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

I amend my previous semi-support. As far as I'm concerned this addresses issues.

Now I can't wait to see a suit of tiny adamantine armor to don when I cast reduce person on my halfling.

Sovereign Court 3/5

2 people 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
Gary Bush wrote:
Vic Wertz wrote:
But at this point, everybody reading this thread knows where I'm coming from, and where Gary was coming from in the original post; I've got no hard feelings, and suggest we move on.
I agree. We all have better things to do than to continue this discussion now that it has been reconsidered, which is all I was asking for.

Just as a future note, asking for reconsideration and asking for delayed implementation in PFS are two separate requests. Trouble brews when you try to do too many things with one thread.

Shadow Lodge 5/5 ⦵⦵ Venture-Lieutenant, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East aka thistledown

1 person marked this as a favorite.

While I don't like the decision they made, I don't see any more contradictions in it, so I'll support it.

Second Seekers (Luwazi Elsbo) 5/5 ⦵⦵ Venture-Lieutenant, North Carolina—Charlotte aka eddv

Tallow wrote:
I do NOT support this petition.

The FAQ is how I have personally always read the rules as written aside from the bit that was just, properly, clarified.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

9 people marked this as a favorite.

Aside from the last clarified piece, the FAQ is the opposite of how I have always read the rules.

Second Seekers (Luwazi Elsbo) 5/5 ⦵⦵ Venture-Lieutenant, North Carolina—Charlotte aka eddv

I actually never expected they would ever clarify which way was right.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

3 people marked this as a favorite.

The drive to further codify the game is something I have mixed feelings over.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Does enchantment happen before or after the multiplication for size in this formula?

2nd, In the instance of mithral, adamantine, and other weapons that have their masterwork costs already factored in, do we cut that out and then apply that back to weapon after or just lump it in and do it all together?

Second Seekers (Luwazi Elsbo) 5/5 ⦵⦵ Venture-Lieutenant, North Carolina—Charlotte aka eddv

I think based on the revised ruling that the magic costs are the same as they have ever been, much like Masterwork but a little less complex thanks to the fact that there are no inherently magically enhanced special materials.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Douglas Edwards wrote:
I think based on the revised ruling that the magic costs are the same as they have ever been, much like Masterwork but a little less complex thanks to the fact that there are no inherently magically enhanced special materials.

Actually, viridium, stone, and bone all have magically enhanced versions that increase functionality after being magically enhanced. Viridium calls out a +1000 gp markup for the boon while the others just state the whole "magical enhancement" part which is a bit ambivialent as to whether that's another version of the material or just what happens when you throw a +1 on them. I've always assumed the latter with bone & stone but considering this who knows.

Also, does this mean Paizo is going to go through and recalculate their giant loadouts in Monster Codex? I'd assume this kind of throws arming a lot of the giants out of the window for the foreseeable future as stuff bigger than clubs can start to really rocket up for a lot of those low tier 3rd-7th level range encounters.


doc the grey wrote:

Does enchantment happen before or after the multiplication for size in this formula?

2nd, In the instance of mithral, adamantine, and other weapons that have their masterwork costs already factored in, do we cut that out and then apply that back to weapon after or just lump it in and do it all together?

Definitely after. The rules in question are for crafting mundane items, which are a component of a magic item, if that makes sense. They are manufactured separately, not together.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Sorry about the muddled ruling here folks. With the number of books, FAQs, updates, and other rulings that we've made over the years, it has become easy for us to contradict ourselves, especially when some of our philosophy on those rules have changed over the years. We endeavor to have a tight ship on these things, but mistakes happen.

Hope we didn't cause too much heartburn...

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

Honest question here. It seems most of the problem was in the Core Ruleback. Shouldn't that have been the one best known? I think a few people would really like it if we could get, say, FAQ 'playtests' before they actually go live and cause threads like this. It might even help people like Gauss not feel the need to leave Paizo and the community.


Gauss was posting just a few hours ago so I don't think he has left.

Silver Crusade 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Pennsylvania—Pittsburgh aka Terminalmancer

This is also not how I have read the rules, but since this clears up the worst of the problems, I think I am also okay with it. Thanks to the design team for reviewing it so quickly!

The various methods for calculating special material cost, using different categories, criteria, and cost calculations--some with, and some without, the masterwork cost included--have really not done anyone a favor. I think the longer-term solution should be to rewrite the costs of every special material to be based on weight and weight alone and make the masterwork cost entirely separate, but that sounds like a job for my home games or pathfinder 2.

1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Terminalmancer wrote:

This is also not how I have read the rules, but since this clears up the worst of the problems, I think I am also okay with it. Thanks to the design team for reviewing it so quickly!

The various methods for calculating special material cost, using different categories, criteria, and cost calculations--some with, and some without, the masterwork cost included--have really not done anyone a favor. I think the longer-term solution should be to rewrite the costs of every special material to be based on weight and weight alone and make the masterwork cost entirely separate, but that sounds like a job for my home games or pathfinder 2.

You would also create a weird mess of "realism" vs "mechanics". As was pointed out in at least one of the threads about this FAQ. Most things are priced based on mechanical benefit not really practical use or "actual economics" would price it.

As such if my 35lb adamantine banded mail, provided the same DR3/- as my 50lb adamantine full plate, but is 70% cheaper, that makes things awkward.

In the case of like current mithral pricing being based on weight for weapons you have the only benefit (besides counted as silver, which is a super cheap bonus on itself) being that it weighs less, so it makes sense that the cost should be directly proportionate to the weight, because the weight is the benefit.

I don't know how this translates out to a lot of other materials because those are the two that I use/care about the most, but it seems to me that special materials are priced they way they are because of mechanical benefit reasons, not realism.

This pricing idea I think is also why a lot of people thought that special material prices would not be multiplied with size difference because it provides the same mechanical benefit, but it is now at a new size level which gives different scales of power possibilities for the creatures it is made for, so seeing it get more expensive does not seem unreasonable.

Silver Crusade 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Pennsylvania—Pittsburgh aka Terminalmancer

Zephyre14 wrote:
Terminalmancer wrote:

This is also not how I have read the rules, but since this clears up the worst of the problems, I think I am also okay with it. Thanks to the design team for reviewing it so quickly!

The various methods for calculating special material cost, using different categories, criteria, and cost calculations--some with, and some without, the masterwork cost included--have really not done anyone a favor. I think the longer-term solution should be to rewrite the costs of every special material to be based on weight and weight alone and make the masterwork cost entirely separate, but that sounds like a job for my home games or pathfinder 2.

You would also create a weird mess of "realism" vs "mechanics". As was pointed out in at least one of the threads about this FAQ. Most things are priced based on mechanical benefit not really practical use or "actual economics" would price it.

As such if my 35lb adamantine banded mail, provided the same DR3/- as my 50lb adamantine full plate, but is 70% cheaper, that makes things awkward.

In the case of like current mithral pricing being based on weight for weapons you have the only benefit (besides counted as silver, which is a super cheap bonus on itself) being that it weighs less, so it makes sense that the cost should be directly proportionate to the weight, because the weight is the benefit.

I don't know how this translates out to a lot of other materials because those are the two that I use/care about the most, but it seems to me that special materials are priced they way they are because of mechanical benefit reasons, not realism.

This pricing idea I think is also why a lot of people thought that special material prices would not be multiplied with size difference because it provides the same mechanical benefit, but it is now at a new size level which gives different scales of power possibilities for the creatures it is made for, so seeing it get more expensive does not seem unreasonable.

If you wanted to make it work, it would be a project, not a simple repricing. You'd need to look at weights and average prices and benefits and a lot of other things. It may not be feasible at all; I just think it's the simplest way forward off the top of my "I've thought about this deeply for about 5 minutes" head.


rknop wrote:
There remain exploits with Fitting armor and such. For home games, you can go with a usual "don't be cheesy" rule. PFS will probably need to disallow Fitting. ("Don't be cheesy" would contradict the play style of too many players to be viable there....)

As I pointed out elsewhere, not sure if here or other thread, this doesn't have to be seen as an exploit. Now a DM is free to equip larger bad guys with special material items without having to worry about hundreds of thousands of treasure/gp being tied up in that equipment. Now the DM just has a single price to work with no matter the size of the baddy wearing the armor.

Venture-Agent, Utah—Provo aka Chess Pwn

magic items intent is pretty much to "break/bypass" some rules now and again. ring of evasion breaks reflex for half damage rules. Ring of sustenance breaks survival gather food rules. cord of stubborn resolve breaks lack of sleep rules and rage rules. sharding and blink back belt breaks throwing rules. Impact breaks weapon damage for size rules. muleback cords breaks encumbrance rules. Comfort breaks ACP rules. Bracers of armor break monks no armor rules. Etc.

Many magic items and enhancements make certain rules no longer apply to the character.

Dark Archive

what FAQ? i see no FAQ update, just ppl complaining/discussing it??

EDIT - i see the change in the FAQ of course. what i mean is, it was not mentioned in the paizo blog. other than seeing a zillion ppl posting about this, how/where should i have known the FAQ had been updated before being surprised by this at a con?

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

strangepork wrote:

what FAQ? i see no FAQ update, just ppl complaining/discussing it??

very bottom of last page


Dragonborn3 wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Sorry about the muddled ruling here folks. With the number of books, FAQs, updates, and other rulings that we've made over the years, it has become easy for us to contradict ourselves, especially when some of our philosophy on those rules have changed over the years. We endeavor to have a tight ship on these things, but mistakes happen.

Hope we didn't cause too much heartburn...

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

Honest question here. It seems most of the problem was in the Core Ruleback. Shouldn't that have been the one best known? I think a few people would really like it if we could get, say, FAQ 'playtests' before they actually go live and cause threads like this. It might even help people like Gauss not feel the need to leave Paizo and the community.

If I was leaving I would just do it, I wouldn't make a production out of it.

I never threatened to leave, I expressed concern over the direction Paizo is going.

I used to tout Paizo as the company that talks to its customers on a regular basis and listens to what we want (even if it doesn't always give it to us). I have not been able to tell people that for a couple years now.

Dark Archive

BigNorseWolf wrote:
strangepork wrote:

what FAQ? i see no FAQ update, just ppl complaining/discussing it??

very bottom of last page

sorry i edited my post, but thx for that!

thats post #250 in a thread complaining about the FAQ change. what i mean is how did people get clued in to the FAQ change in the first place? i monitor the paizo blog and didnt recall seeing it, just checked and it was not in there.

ty in advance

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

1 person marked this as a favorite.
strangepork wrote:

what i mean is how did people get clued in to the FAQ change in the first place? i monitor the paizo blog and didnt recall seeing it, just checked and it was not in there.

ty in advance

Mark seifer's "ask mark seifer anything" in off topic. Some people that should spend more time outside *whistles innocently* pretty much spam it with f5 on faq fridays tuesdays.

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

BigNorseWolf wrote:
You get charged double for the mitrhal in the armor because its going on a horse because _____________ ?

Ok I will bite...

Charles, the local blacksmith wrote:

Yea, you want some mithral plate barding for your warhorse. Let me take a look at the beast. Hmm.. pretty big guy.. will take a bit more metal to make the barding. And extra time time to make each of the pieces. i will need to have the horse close by as I fit all the pieces. whats that? Of course my work is first class. I am a master at my craft.. The bindings and straps? Why yes, I use only the finest leather, made by the finest leather crafters in these here parts. Why they have been doing it for 30 years, almost as long as I have been a blacksmith. And they are not cheap, let me tell. True masters! Just like me ** Have I mentioned that I am a master blacksmith?? Yes.. good.**

What, the 4,400 GP is too high? what do you think is a fair price? 1,400?? Why hell that will barely buy the mithral I need to do the job...

Well you let me know if you want that barding. Oh, and the other blacksmiths in town? They are all my kin... have a nice day...

The Exchange 1/5

The Decemvirate prefers a controlled market economy?

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

Watches Gary break a tooth.

Straps and buckles are why you pay double the base cost to begin with.

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

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Watches Gary break a tooth.

Straps and buckles are why you pay double the base cost to begin with.

LOL, no the straps and buckles alone do not double the base cost. My point is that there is likely a lot to consider when making barding for larger+ creatures. While the amount of material need likely does not increase proportionally, I believe the other factors do. More work to make more pieces. The time to make it. Barding is not an off-the-rack item.

We play in a fantasy setting that does not directly equal our real world.

I don't think the cost multiplier is out of line. I realize you disagree. So the best I think we can do on this issue is to respectfully disagree and enjoy playing the adventures.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gary Bush wrote:
Barding is not an off-the-rack item.

Nothing is really an off the rack item. Its a pre industrial society.

And not every armor is custom fitted plate mail. Toss on a sweater toss on some chainmail and you're good to go. If you have too much at the feast they can let it out for you pretty easily.

Quote:
LOL, no the straps and buckles alone do not double the base cost. My point is that there is likely a lot to consider when making barding for larger+ creatures.

Stop. Listen.

I did not object to more mithral costing more. I objected to the non humanoid portion costing you twice as much special material, on TOP of the extra cost for more mithral and on top of the non humanoid body shape fee you already pay in the base price.

Quote:
We play in a fantasy setting that does not directly equal our real world.

Arbitrary and ridiculous rules that are spelled out are one thing. (and this is what i think is ticking me off the most about this ruling) but ridiculous and arbitrary solutions to rules gray areas that exist for years undermine sense itself, which you need to fill in tons of gaps and gray areas. Every single rules question i see now i need to bite down the urge to say "well gods know how they want to actually resolve it ..."

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

Ramon 'Ray' Azure wrote:


The Decemvirate prefers a controlled market economy?

They're good. They even got the laws of physics to agree with them, as fabricating a suit of mithral horse barding would require as much mithral as mythil giant barding...

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

I have more important things in my life than to let something in a game work me up that much. Do I like it? No. But I am not a designer. I don't have the time or talent to make one. So I play in someone else world and I have to accept what someone else had designated.

Or I could not play. The choice is always there.

251 to 300 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.