| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A thing came up in a discussion elsewhere and I'm curious about how much player groups differ over distances with regards to a particular rule.
How often do players in your experience:
1. Play a character that has ASF?
2. Roll it without the GM reminding them?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm starting to wonder if the local community is the only one in the world where people will go 'yeah a 5% ASF is probably fine'.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I never encountered a player willing to accept the risk of arcane spell failure (ASF). My impression is that arcane casters are rarely played by light-hearted players who don't mind rolling with randomness, but mostly by players who try to keep everything under control.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah I think I'm the only person in my group who's done it. I had a Sorcerer with light armour proficiency .
I was pretty good about remembering it unprompted, but there was one instance where I forgot and it would have mattered. I was prone with an enemy standing over me, and I had to roll a concentration check to cast defensively, an attack roll and spell resistance, and the enemy had to roll a save as well. Somehow we got through all 4 of those rolls successfully and the enemy was Dazed/Stunned/whatever and it was a huge moment for my character. It wasn't until after the session that I remembered I should have had 5% spell failure. I rolled it and failed, which really bummed me out actually.
Anyway we'd already moved on so there was no penalty, and the GM was grateful I'd remembered, even if it was too late. I usually do police myself pretty well about that kind of thing though.
I haven't played with it much otherwise, but I did recently notice that Bloodragers get shield proficiency, but don't ignore spell failure from shields . Perhaps that'll be important to someone one day.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Without SheepishEidolon post I wouldn't have guessed what you were asking. With some short-term exception (a disguise or similar stuff) I have never met a player willing to risk arcane spells failure.
Spells are a limited resource, so adding another failure risk, after the concentration check, the saves, and spell resistance, is something my playing group generally dislike.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
on 2 separate occasions I have played characters with ASF... The first was an Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue who after going down in combat 5 times opted to wear a mithral chainshirt we looted off an enemy... the small ASF was worth being able to actually live in combat... though it kept biting me in the ass at the most inopportune moments... every time we really needed one of my spells to work I rolled a failure...
the second time was a brief period with my bloodrager... at the time I had an odd build for her that involved multiclassing into magus and sorcerer... it turned out to be an absolutely horrible idea, and she later retrained into straight bloodrager...
I don't recall anyone else in my group ever playing a character that had to deal with ASF... we had one who was playing a wizard and said he was going to take light armor proficiency... until he remembered ASF is a thing...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't remember is Bard's suffer from ASF, but if they do, we might have fudged on her character.
As long as they aren't in Medium or Heavy armor they are fine.
Weapon and Armor Proficiency: A bard is proficient with all simple weapons, plus the longsword, rapier, sap, short sword, shortbow, and whip. Bards are also proficient with light armor and shields (except tower shields). A bard can cast bard spells while wearing light armor and use a shield without incurring the normal arcane spell failure chance. Like any other arcane spellcaster, a bard wearing medium or heavy armor incurs a chance of arcane spell failure if the spell in question has a somatic component. A multiclass bard still incurs the normal arcane spell failure chance for arcane spells received from other classes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The issue is that Mage Armor exists. The math just doesn't work out - Armor is either very expensive, has a high ASF (mithral breastplate has 15%, or instance), or doesn't provide notably more AC than Mage Armor. For example, +2AC over Mage Armor with 5% ASF costs almost 10k gold.
The same applies to when using Arcane Armor Training/Mastery or Child of Acavna and Amaznen Eldritch Armor Training - options that go beyond those with 0% ASF are very expensive.
How often do players in your experience:
2. Roll it without the GM reminding them?
If you play a character with ASF, and don't roll it every time you cast a spell, you're cheating. If you're genuinly unable to remember such stuff (no judgement!), don't play a character with such stuff.
Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue who after going down in combat 5 times opted to wear a mithral chainshirt we looted off an enemy... the small ASF was worth being able to actually live in combat...
Why didn't you simply use Mage Armor? It's on the Eldritch Scoundrel's spell list, and does the same as an non-magical mithral chain shirt...
I can't remember is Bard's suffer from ASF
Not in light armor. Most gish classes have such a feature, which is another reason why you don't usually see ASF: Magus, Bard, Summoner, and Warlock, Cabalist, and Magical Child Vigilante archetypes can all cast in light armor without ASF. Skald, Bloodrager, and 7th+ level Magus can also do so in medium armor. 13th+ level Magus can even cast in heavy armor. Child of Acavna and Amaznen Fighter has ASF reduction as swift action. Missing: Questioner Investigator, Hag-Haunted Spiritualist, Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue, and Silksworn Occultist, with the latter two not being proficient with armor. You might argue that Silksworn is more like a full caster than a gish.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you play a character with ASF, and don't roll it every time you cast a spell, you're cheating.How often do players in your experience:
2. Roll it without the GM reminding them?
Just a reminder that ARCANE SPELL FAILURE only applies to spells with Somatic components. If you have a spell-list full of Verbal/Material/Focus components then you can cast fine in armour. Likewise if you take the Still Spell metamagic feat you can use it to ignore ASF.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
5% or more chance of doing nothing on your turn on top of additional chances of failure is #NotFun.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have played, been in a party with, and GM'd for characters with an ASF chance. With that said...in my experience (extensive, but still anecdotal at the end of the day), ASF is exceedingly rare. The only people I've seen dabble in it tend to be at the intersection of "extremely knowledgeable about all system rules and mechanics" and "...but I still want to focus on making a concept come to life even if the mechanics involved end up fairly bad."
If you're an arcane caster, you are almost guaranteed to have access to much better ways to protect yourself than AC, so even if you're getting a substantial amount of AC by combining the feat line with low ASF armor/equipment to reduce the amount to an acceptable value, it's almost never going to be the best solution. The only times you would do it are just because you like the concept, or if the arcane aspect of the character is very low-impact and it's not going to make or break your day if one of your 1st-level spells fails.
To clarify in more succinct terms:
1. Exceedingly rarely, but not unheard of.
2. Always. If you're running ASF, you either have no idea what you're doing (and will likely quickly correct it after someone points it out) or you tend to know exactly what you're doing, as far as my personal experience.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only time i remember playing a characther with Arcane Spell failure was when in DDO i tried playing a Warforged wizard with Adamentine Body. Needless to say i ended up abandonning that character pretty quickly when i realised that wiffing one third of your spell is just not fun.
As Derklord put it, mage armor is good enough if you want the equivalent of Light Armor AC and if you need more you just can't afford the high percentage.
As for ways to deal with it i always found that Arcane armor training and arcane armor mastery were kind of bad. You need two feats and mithral armor to make it relevant and it still eats your swift action everyturn.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you have a spell-list full of Verbal/Material/Focus components then you can cast fine in armour.
- There are only very few of those spells, though - between 5% and 10%, depending on the list (Wizard, e.g. Eldritch Knight 6.2%, ES Rogue 6.0%, Bard/Skald/Questioner 10.0%, Summoner/Magical Child 6.3%, Magus/Warlock/Cabalist 5.0%, Bloodrager/CoAaA 4.9%, Silksworn 7.0%, Hag-Haunted 4.9%).
I don't think limiting your spell selection that much (or increasing the level of every spell by one) is worth the AC. Especially since there is no option akin to lowering spell resistance to cast such spells out ot combat apart from outright taking off your armor.
Indeed, but I'd say most of the time there are better options still. Like using an archetype that makes the character divine or psychic instead of arcane. Or getting AC from elsewhere (including Mage Armor), and using Mock Armor when the character concept demands appearing in armor.
The only people I've seen dabble in it tend to be at the intersection of "extremely knowledgeable about all system rules and mechanics" and "...but I still want to focus on making a concept come to life even if the mechanics involved end up fairly bad."
You know, I'd have expected the opposite - new(ish) players who haven't gotten out of the "I have this character idea that I absolutely must do without even the slightest deviation in flavor or classes" phase. You know, the type of player to use weird multiclassing to grab a tiny thing you could've gotten with a trait, and uses prestige classes (especially Eldritch Knight and Dragon Disciple), and usually only uses CRB classes (because of the class names - "I want my character to be good at fighting, so I must have Fighter levels!").
I'd expect players with ample system mastery to be able to find option for virtually every character concept that don't leave ASF chance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As many others here have said, playing with ASF is not much fun, because there are already plenty of other ways to fail without stacking the deck against yourself.
In my last Pathfinder home game, I had a PC who was a multiclassed wizard/cleric, working toward mystic theurge. That PC got the armor proficiency for free from cleric, and took Arcane Armor Training as soon as she could afford to buy a mithral shirt (thus cancelling out the ASF). Until then, she limped along with mage armor (often cast from scrolls she'd scribed herself, so she could free up slots for other spells). That game fizzled out before we got much beyond that point, but the idea was that the theurge-in-training was going to go the crafter route, which would make armor (and many other things) more affordable, and thus she would never need to go back to casting mage armor.
Meanwhile, my own arcane casters rarely, if ever, multi-class, so have longer durations on their protective spells. They know they're never going to win the AC race, so tend to find a lesser extend metamagic rod to be a better investment than playing games with armor and ASF.
At one point, I did compile a list of all the non-somatic spells available to wizards, with the idea of building a heavily-armored eldritch knight around that list, but the magus is so much more efficient at being a gish that I never followed through on the idea.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I tried once to play a character who occasionally carried a buckler with ASF chance. Remembering to roll it wasn't a problem as it was automatically added to the spell macro in roll20, but making sure I had the actions to take the dang thing off in an emergency wasn't as easy. That plan lasted a couple levels.
It's not like he was getting attacked enough for the living steel effect to matter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I once played an oracle who was rebuilt into a blood mystic after I found out that we did not really have arcane spellcasting covered in the group after all. The latter (3rd party) class suffered from arcane spell failure for all spells, so I had to roll for that until I had the chance to exchange my armor for other armor that was less protective but had 0% ASF.
The more ongoing problem was that my spells known were lopsided in favor of divine spells until I gained more levels and learned more arcane spells.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only people I've seen dabble in it tend to be at the intersection of "extremely knowledgeable about all system rules and mechanics" and "...but I still want to focus on making a concept come to life even if the mechanics involved end up fairly bad."You know, I'd have expected the opposite - new(ish) players who haven't gotten out of the "I have this character idea that I absolutely must do without even the slightest deviation in flavor or classes" phase. You know, the type of player to use weird multiclassing to grab a tiny thing you could've gotten with a trait, and uses prestige classes (especially Eldritch Knight and Dragon Disciple), and usually only uses CRB classes (because of the class names - "I want my character to be good at fighting, so I must have Fighter levels!").
I'd expect players with ample system mastery to be able to find option for virtually every character concept that don't leave ASF chance.
I think a lot of this has to do with player mentality, table norms, and assumptions. I do think there is some truth to the notion that newer players can come into the hobby somewhat "starry-eyed," not feeling bound by expectations that veterans of years or decades take as incontrovertible truth, but I think that's just one type of player. The aspects of the game that appeal to someone on a fundamental level generally aren't going to change. Someone who wants to play tabletop because they're excited to engage in roleplay and considers mechanics a secondary appeal may gradually get better with their mechanics over time, but it would take an event beyond the game (as in, a personal change) to push them into a position where they would start prioritizing mechanics. On the opposite side of that same coin, I would say the vast majority of new Pathfinder players I've encountered have enough mechanical care and gumption to take one glance at ASF, see that it represents a chance at not actually using their standard action, and immediately conclude that it's a mechanic for suckers. They could just as easily have rewritten the rules to say, "Any of these things that give any percent chance of arcane spell failure cause 100% of all arcane spells to fail" in the eyes of these players, because any arcane caster they play will always maintain a 0% ASF chance forever -- which is also norm for most people. And that brings me to my second point:
Most groups and tables assume you'll just stick with an ASF of 0%. Even if you're more roleplay-focused, you do still need to make a number of mechanical choices. I find that rather than making the awful multiclass builds that are stereotypically attributed to these players, they're perfectly happy to request the advice of one or more of a group's rule or build experts to create a character that will function well with the types of abilities they want them to possess, and then devote their own brainpower to worrying about the character's story, past, and development. They generally have no issue with someone explaining to them, "You'll actually get more of what you're looking for if you splash a level of a different class than you had in mind and change one of your archetypes instead of those two Fighter levels." Naturally, groups that don't have or encourage this kind of cooperative dynamic may be more likely to have players who flounder if mechanics aren't their thing. It can also depend on the pride and mentality of the individual.
On a less broad level and speaking from my personal experience, I've played at a lot of different tables with wildly different groups of people. I've played at no-nonsense tables that demand high optimization every step of the way...but I've also played at tables with TWF characters getting STR to damage with 10 STR and no damage add-ons like Sneak Attack. I've seen a Magus who used Spell Combat as their full-round action about 10% of the time it was the best choice. When I'm at a table with these kinds of groups, I am going to pace my character's strength to a degree appropriate to what the table finds fun and fitting -- not bring in a Wizard specialized in Stinking Cloud and/or Phantasmal Web. That means that unless optimization is the name of the game, there's a lot more room to work with in character concepts. When the accepted standard is an 8th-level martial character dealing less damage than any modestly mechanics-focused player could with a 1st-level greatsword Fighter, it's perfectly okay to take that 5% or even 10% ASF, or build a Gunslinger that misfires on 1-3. I've even brought out multiple of those "awful" unoptimized multiclass builds and played them myself, still accidentally outshining other party members just by making the mechanical pieces fit together better even if the class combination is purely worse than going all of one or the other.
There's another side to this as well, which is that you talk about all the methods one can use to get out of ASF for a character concept. This is a much more table-dependent point and will probably apply to a considerably smaller portion of players, but I've played at plenty of tables where there are very fundamental differences between using arcane and divine magic from world lore perspectives. Things that can affect how the rest of the world and even allies perceive a person. Things that can limit or change choices and options available, like differences in the ability to research custom spells based on house rules. These circumstances will obviously vary so greatly that it's impossible to make any blanket arguments about them, but it's still worth considering that there may be more mechanically relevant reasons based on table variation to accept some ASF once in a blue moon than are readily apparent in the direct rules of the game.
EDIT: Adding on to my thoughts at the end of the third paragraph, I'd go as far as to say that milking the most power possible out of dysfunctional builds has actually become a hobby of mine. Just building a bad character isn't mechanically engaging. Character building is fundamentally like a puzzle to me. But accepting a limitation like distributing equal character levels in three classes for an entire character's career, when all three can't be martial -- that's a proper challenge. Sometimes I still overshoot my mark like I mentioned, but it's a way to engage with Pathfinder's build mechanics at a level I can sink my teeth into while not bowling over anyone enjoying the game at their own pace.
-I've found it to be an almost universal norm to have and maintain 0% ASF, which is propagated as a school of thought beyond individual tables
-Players who aren't mechanics-focused, regardless of whether they're new or not, will generally be happy to accept advice from others if offered which leads to them quickly removing any ASF they might have considered
-Tables have huge optimization variance, making potentially self-crippling mechanics viable or even interesting depending on the group
-The existence of potentially deep houserules or world lore can still present situations where taking ASF is more meaningful or viable than it first appears, but this can't really be assessed except to note that there can be cases where it applies
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It might be a good idea to add a TLDR for that LunarVale.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He could easily be remembering an older version of mithral armor. Wasn't elven chainmail wearable by wizards in ad&d?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think there's another thing to that might explain the lack of ASF. Back in 3.5, there was no easy option to ignore it, if you wanted to play a Gish you were either going unarmored or you had some way to reduce ASF throught prestige class, which didn't come before at least 6th level.
Now that Magus exist to fill the gish archetype, there's absolutely no reason to ever to even consider having to deal with ACF.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find that rather than making the awful multiclass builds that are stereotypically attributed to these players, they're perfectly happy to request the advice of one or more of a group's rule or build experts to create a character that will function well with the types of abilities they want them to possess, and then devote their own brainpower to worrying about the character's story, past, and development.
Oh sure, I didn't mean to imply that the majority of new players build crappy multiclass characters, I merely assumed that the majority of players actually using armor with ASF were "new(ish)". Although I realized 3.x veterans are also often plagued by it - see my response to Mark Hoover below.
I do think there is some truth to the notion that newer players can come into the hobby somewhat "starry-eyed," not feeling bound by expectations that veterans of years or decades take as incontrovertible truth, but I think that's just one type of player.
- Well, not being bound by made up limitations like "Bards cannot fill in effectively the healer, skill man, or warrior well in the long run." or "Having a cleric is a -need- for early play." is a good thing. What isn't is the idea that a) every mix-and-match combination of CRB classes produces a strong character and b) every character concept can be done well by purely combining CRB classes.
I don't understand why, but "i want to fight so i want a fighter", caring more about the class's name than what mechanics it brings, is a thing that exists.
You gave another reason for why one might want to use a suboptimal class (or -combination), but I still think most players who do take ASF (on all spells, I don't mean wearing Mithral Breastplate with Arcane Armor Mastery and having to cast with ASF once in a blue moon when they're suprised and desperately need that Feather Fall) do so because they either don't know about, or are too stuck in nostalgia mode to take, better options.
I've played at plenty of tables where there are very fundamental differences between using arcane and divine magic from world lore perspectives.
Purely out of interest Are those settings full homebrew, or based on some past D&D stuff? If homebrew, was the inventor of the setting a D&D veteran? And were those actually Pathfinder games? Because D&D seems to have made a big deal out of the arcane/divine divide, but it just isn't a thing in Pathfinder.
I have an anecdote that might be the exception that proves the rule. 5 of my players, across 2 of my campaigns, are veteran players from 3x to PF1, and have been in these systems for 20 years each, if not more. Recently, as we've gotten into higher levels, these players have all in one instance or another, been stymied at finding options to do what they wanted until I went hunting for feats or items to get them to their goals.
That's actually something that you see surprisingly often: That having played past editions of D&D actually reduces a person's Pathfinder system mastery, as such people often have a hard time accepting PF as it is (or are unwilling to properly learn it). 3.x veterans building multiclass characters with CRB classes* because they're familiar with those, and taking prestige classes because that was the way to do it in 3.5, isn't actually surprising.
*) Except Bard, which seems to be really unpopular among 3.x veterans in stuck in nostalgia mode, for some reason.
I had a sorcerer who wanted to look like a squire/herald to all of the heavily armored characters in the group. I HATED being targeted in ambushes and early in every fight because I 'looked like a caster' instead of a martial. I had a mithril chain shirt and both arcane armor training and mastery.
I know that it's an option not widely known, but Mock Armor is perfect for that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
*) Except Bard, which seems to be really unpopular among 3.x veterans in stuck in nostalgia mode, for some reason.
As a 3.5 veteran i love pathfinder's Bard, but i get where they are coming from, bard design was so frustrating in 3.5...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You wouldn't need a feat to wear a mithral chain shirt without penalty anyway, aside from the asf which proficiency doesn't help with. Maybe there's some feat chain consideration at play, or maybe they don't know what they're doing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mithral bucklers are your friend. :)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because D&D seems to have made a big deal out of the arcane/divine divide, but it just isn't a thing in Pathfinder.
I think Pathfinder still has a big divide between arcane and divine power for the spells. Not so much in what spells you can cast (see witch) but in the origin, defenses, and even some limitations.
There are classes that have specific resistance/saves against divine or arcane magic, the use of components against divine focuses, the almost exclusively of "sacred" bonuses for divine magic, and so on. Even the simple fact that a caster can lose access to divine magic for lapses of faith, while there isn't a way to lose access to arcane magic because you act in the "wrong" way.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ASF and Encumbrance are dumb and I don't enforce them unless you're trying to manually haul a siege weapon around. Tbh, PC's will always figure out a way to carry all their crap around if you give them enough time, and they'll figure out the cheesiest ways to get around ASF, so why bother. I understand why it's realistic, but it bogs down my sesh with crap I frankly don't care about.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ASF and Encumbrance are dumb and I don't enforce them unless you're trying to manually haul a siege weapon around. Tbh, PC's will always figure out a way to carry all their crap around if you give them enough time, and they'll figure out the cheesiest ways to get around ASF, so why bother. I understand why it's realistic, but it bogs down my sesh with crap I frankly don't care about.
?
Arcane Spell Failure is based on the encumbrance of the armor, not the weight you are carrying.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ASF and Encumbrance are dumb and I don't enforce them unless you're trying to manually haul a siege weapon around. Tbh, PC's will always figure out a way to carry all their crap around if you give them enough time, and they'll figure out the cheesiest ways to get around ASF, so why bother. I understand why it's realistic, but it bogs down my sesh with crap I frankly don't care about.?
Arcane Spell Failure is based on the encumbrance of the armor, not the weight you are carrying.
Yep. I'm well aware. I invite you to re-read my comment, but this time read it as if I know the difference between ASF and Encumbrance, and that I think that ASF is dumb, and I also think Encumbrance is dumb, and that these are two things that I don't enforce because they bog down my sesh with minutia that will eventually be resolved with minimal cost to the PC's but 1/2 my sesh is now wasted.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dropping the ASF rules would tempt me to make a Full Plate and Tower Shield wizard. (Who needs proficiency? It's just penalties to hit and the like...)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dropping the ASF rules would tempt me to make a Full Plate and Tower Shield wizard. (Who needs proficiency? It's just penalties to hit and the like...)
No, it's just a gentleman's agreement that they wear appropriate armor for their class/proficiency and I don't enforce ASF. It's not a golden ticket for abuse.
Likewise, don't carry around siege weapons and I won't enforce encumbrance either.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dropping the ASF rules would tempt me to make a Full Plate and Tower Shield wizard. (Who needs proficiency? It's just penalties to hit and the like...)No, it's just a gentleman's agreement that they wear appropriate armor for their class/proficiency and I don't enforce ASF. It's not a golden ticket for abuse.
Likewise, don't carry around siege weapons and I won't enforce encumbrance either.
People will end abusing it without the intention to cheat.
I don't enforce strict encumbrance checks as soon as something is added, but ask to respect the encumbrance limits in the things people normally bring around. Every so often we do a general check of encumbrance.One of my players, that had a high strength character and in RL has a passion for mountain walks, so know the weight of a backpack, had accumulated so many small, useful, low weight trinkets that he ended in the high end of heavy encumbered. His character had a 18 modified dexterity, so being heavily encumbered mattered, and the player had no intention to cheat and was quite surprised. Simply, the stuff ad accumulated bit by bit over several sessions.
Then there is the factor that some classes impose choices based on ASF.
A bard is a proficiency away from using mithral medium armor. Mithral medium armor is counted as light for several things. And a bard can live with a 15% spell failure chance, especially when using some archetype.
Do you impose the ASF chance or not in that situation?
Or you ask the bard not to take the proficiency?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dropping the ASF rules would tempt me to make a Full Plate and Tower Shield wizard. (Who needs proficiency? It's just penalties to hit and the like...)
And initiative.
A character who wears armor and/or uses a shield with which he is not proficient takes the armor's (and/or shield's) armor check penalty on attack rolls as well as on all Dexterity - and Strength -based ability and skill checks. The penalty for nonproficiency with armor stacks with the penalty for shields.
On ASF, the 20% chance from being deaf was an interesting problem for the bard this past weekend.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
?
Arcane Spell Failure is based on the encumbrance of the armor, not the weight you are carrying.
It would make Arcane spellcaster less inclined to completly dumb str however... *sadistically makes notes*
As for encumbrance, i think it sucks micromanaging it because the inventory sheet is just bad. When i ran my 5e i made a basic custom sheet that was bigger, larger, had entry for the value, the weight and also location.
Oh and i found that most of the time the culprit for extra unaccounted weight is just the sheer amount of coin the party is carrying. 1lbs for each 50 gp is not bad at first level, but it starts to pile up really quickly if you don't find means to convert or store it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh and i found that most of the time the culprit for extra unaccounted weight is just the sheer amount of coin the party is carrying. 1lbs for each 50 gp is not bad at first level, but it starts to pile up really quickly if you don't find means to convert or store it.
I have redone the monetary system. A coin with 9 grams of gold (or even 5 if it is an alloy) is very valuable and not convenient to use for everyday expenses. It is like using 500 € banknotes to buy groceries. So, in my campaign, the standard coins are silver but is possible to get gold pieces to bring down the weight. Gold money is used for most magic items transactions.
In advanced realms (Taldor, Quadira, Chelaxia, etc.) there are letters of change emitted by banks and Abadar churches. After all the Inner Seas region is as developed as Renaissance Europe, so it is reasonable to think that the advanced nations have a complex monetary system.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Arcane armor training, light, medium and heavy armor proficiency, mithal armor.
There are ways to go around in armor even if you are a arcane spellcaster.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That was basically how the game was designed in the first place, I believe (assuming you keep the 1:10 ratio between the coins). It's just that we play adventurers so economy is presented from the POV of the GP.
I have redone the monetary system. A coin with 9 grams of gold (or even 5 if it is an alloy) is very valuable and not convenient to use for everyday expenses. It is like using 500 € banknotes to buy groceries. So, in my campaign, the standard coins are silver but is possible to get gold pieces to bring down the weight. Gold money is used for most magic items transactions.
Gygax and Arneson actually designed the game to have the economy of a gold rush boom-town. Inflated food and mundane prices, low value for gold.
Even the more recent stuff still reflects that kind of economy.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have redone the monetary system. A coin with 9 grams of gold (or even 5 if it is an alloy) is very valuable and not convenient to use for everyday expenses. It is like using 500 € banknotes to buy groceries. So, in my campaign, the standard coins are silver but is possible to get gold pieces to bring down the weight. Gold money is used for most magic items transactions.
In advanced realms (Taldor, Quadira, Chelaxia, etc.) there are letters of change emitted by banks and Abadar churches. After all the Inner Seas region is as developed as Renaissance Europe, so it is reasonable to think that the advanced nations have a complex monetary system.
I've done something similar in my homebrewed world, but less complex. Basically divided the vavlue of everyhting by 10 and added a new small currency called dime which are worth 1/10 of a copper coin. Everything in game manual that has a listed price is considered to have its price listed in silver instead. Gold is thus pretty valuable has it's worth 10 time it's price in pathfinder. Platine are basically gems tha are just there for deals of extreme value, kind like the old 1000$ bills.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking from a player perspective I love the idea of my full wizard/arcanist wearing armour even if its only light (just makes sense especially at lower levels when mage armor doesn't last long enough to protect against ambushes when your not expecting to fight, not to mention it can't be dispelled surpressed). I've never followed through with it because I didn't want to deal with ASF but I've at times pondered buying some light armor and wearing it without proficiency when travelling. We're going down into a dungeon? Great take it off and activate defensive spells, we're travelling through the mountains on goes the chain shirt so I have a chance of surviving bandit arrows. As I said though the flip side is I either have to give up two feats (armor proficiency and arcane armor training), a swift action each round and still possibly deal with it if the failure chance is high enough. It just never seemed worth it. Plus by the time you've got the feats assuming you didn't delay on something else mage armor's lasting long enough to just keep it active.
Still annoys me that arcane casters have to deal with it while no one else has a "Your primary feature fails up to 50% of the time when you try to use it" issue. Along with the best healing spells still not having made it to the arcane list but that's another thread.