|
Doesn't need to make sense. It could simply be a game balance issue. The designers are making decisions that consistently prove that the animal companion isn't supposed to be the star.
In doing so, it also prevents any large+ sized bestiary monster from using special materials without either:
a) providing the PCs with an item that will only be sold for a massive windfall (especially with the grief fitting enchantment is recieved).b) completely wreck that NPC's equipment, because for some reason, being able to bypass DR/adamantium is worth x2/x4/etc than that of a medium sized NPC's weapon.
The verisimilitude is not here. This is not a case of more material = costs more. Large sized daggers cost more due to being made out of adamantium than medium sized greatswords, despite weighing much less.
I agree, the only reason this change seems to be made is so that animal companions can't wear mithral armor.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Doesn't need to make sense. It could simply be a game balance issue. The designers are making decisions that consistently prove that the animal companion isn't supposed to be the star.In doing so, it also prevents any large+ sized bestiary monster from using special materials without either:
a) providing the PCs with an item that will only be sold for a massive windfall (especially with the grief fitting enchantment is recieved).
b) completely wreck that NPC's equipment, because for some reason, being able to bypass DR/adamantium is worth x2/x4/etc than that of a medium sized NPC's weapon.The verisimilitude is not here. This is not a case of more material = costs more. Large sized daggers cost more due to being made out of adamantium than medium sized greatswords, despite weighing much less.
Its become increasingly clear that the game designers intended large+-sized armor and weapons to be the exception rather than the rule. Even more so for special materials.
It has also become increasingly clear, that the prevalence of players buying mithral and adamantine armor for their animal companions was not what was intended.
As such, the rules are coming back into line with what was intended.
Sure, it may not make mathematical sense. But it doesn't need to.
I'll tell you this though, it makes a ton of sense that large mithral barding would be more expensive than large mithral armor. Why? Because working the armor into the weird shapes required is time consuming. And it may also actually require more material, since the large, potentially 4-legged creature would require more pieces as well.
Large Biped =/= Large Quadruped for sheer amount of space needed to be covered. I'm sure someone can do a surface space calculation for the irregular surface area of various body types and either prove or disprove my postulation.
Furthermore, the base cost of Adamantine for a dagger vs. a greatsword doesn't make any more sense without throwing in size differences. That was a choice that got carried over from 3.5 that hasn't changed... hopefully yet.
But frankly, if there were a cost per pound for adamantine, I would expect it to be exceptionally higher than mithril, so that maybe the dagger would be 3,000gp more, but the great sword would be 25 times that.
Venture-Captain, Nebraska—Omaha
|
Well, my son has already spent the money on +1 mithral chain shirt barding and since it is calculated in the manner that the FAQ requires he can't get a full refund.
This being said, 4,400 for a large quadruped armor does not seem like huge expense. But that is light armor so moving up to medium to heavy, yea, not going to be able to do that.
|
|
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.Speaking of wording, this cut dangerously close to "we don't give a **** about our paying customers"... not a feeling you want to give people.
I am guessing Organized Play could use some reworking/retooling in concern of Optional Rules.
Side note: has the pricing for Adamantine weapons (and potentially, armors) been fixed yet?
What was wrong with them?
|
... Dagger vs Greatsword ...That's what the FAQ was about. You now multiply the additional cost for the special materials by whatever the size adjustment is. So a large adamantine weapon would be +6,000gp.The adamantine pricing. What needs fixing?Cost to material/size, like the flat +3000 GP for weapons.
What percentage of a halberd is metal?
That way lies madness.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would suggest, as a sort of "best practices" for FAQs and errata, that a draft answer be posted on the forums with a two-week timeframe for it to be adjusted by the devs (based on feedback) before becoming "official." There really is simply too much in the Pathfinder rules universe for any single person or team, even experts, to foresee all possible implications of a change to one little part of a system. This won't fix all potential problems, of course, but it will help catch more obvious ones like contradictions with the Core Rulebook, etc.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
first, horse armor is rarely considered plate mail. At best, maybe field plate, but probably more closely would be chain mail with a few plates on the head, chest and haunches.
But in game terms, the barding isn't typical horse barding. Its full plate mail made into a suit of armor for a horse.
And the pieces of armor are completely different in shape and size. And the movements of a horse is completely different than that of a humanoid. Which is why unusual creature armor or barding has a multiplier in cost. It makes sense that material that's more difficult to work with would carry that multiplier.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here we are again arguing about in-game mechanics using real-world logic examples. The game is a simulation not a replication of real life. Often times rules are made for balance reasons or just ease of making mechanics moreso than trying to exactly/perfectly duplicate their real-world inspiration.
|
|
Doesn't need to make sense. It could simply be a game balance issue. The designers are making decisions that consistently prove that the animal companion isn't supposed to be the star.
To be honest, I'd honestly just rather them ban "pets" altogether.
If pets are the problem, devil's advocating here, isn't removing pets the solution?
Who gets to decide who is the star, or what is goodrightfun? <assuming the idea here is the PC is reduced to increase the pet, not both are OP>
Does this in any way fix things like Mage Armor?
Again, Devil's Advocating here, the more substantial issues tend to be things like Druids with Animal Companions, where essentially the Animal Companion and the Druid are both full on characters, allowing that Player to do almost twice as much as everyone else, al the time. The Original Summoner was notorious for this.
Does this attempt to cut down the combat power of pets, particularly in that it is really only going to negatively affect those pets like the Cavalier and less Magically inclined main characters really doing anything at all for the actual problem?
Clerics, Druids, Sorcerers, Witches, and Wizards still have full access to their buffs, not a few of those being longer lasting ones like Mage Armor or Bark Skin are completely unaffected, and probably available much earlier than making Barding cost more, which probably wouldn't have kicked in until much later level anyway. A Pearl of Power is pretty cheap by comparison. Just saying.
|
|
Why doesn't this ruling make special material weapons and armor cost half as much for small characters? Friend just pointed that out.
It costs half as much for tiny and smaller since those armors price is half of the small/medium. Small/Medium are the same price since those are the assumed player sizes and thus they want them as similar mechanically as possible.
|
Why doesn't this ruling make special material weapons and armor cost half as much for small characters? Friend just pointed that out.
Some small-sized items do indeed receive a discount. A mithral dagger for a Halfling is actually cheaper than a small-sized masterwork steel dagger.
There's an FAQ that even points this out.
Why doesn't this ruling make special material weapons and armor cost half as much for small characters? Friend just pointed that out.Some small-sized items do indeed receive a discount. A mithral dagger for a Halfling is actually cheaper than a small-sized masterwork steel dagger.
There's an FAQ that even points this out.
Is it this one?