Interesting stuff in Pathfinder

[phaedrusxy]

lol that's awesome. 

[zook1shoe]

Thx!

Looks like I won't get a hold of Alter Mount. That's getting a huge amount of attention. Maybe Kraken Throttle?

[linklord231]

PFS just banned the gold exploit, in case any of you were using it

here

Turns out it was me that actually got the thing changed. I feel like I've accomplished a mission to fix horrible loopholes

Man, that thread is harsh.  If they think reddit is bad, please never let them find us. 

[zook1shoe]

Right? Whatever, most of them seem to have no sense of understanding the need to find broken things to get them fixed for everyone.

But, I must admit, a tiny part of me is sad to see it go.

[Unbeliever]

I only glanced at it, but the smugness is almost insufferable. 

It bugs me not just b/c of the moral high ground involved, but b/c it also just lets game designers off the hook for poor rules designs.  Which, I feel, is something Paizo has been dining out on ... since its inception? 

Granted, I think this gold exploit is silly, but still, it's the attitude on the thread.  And, some of the rulesy anti-munchkin arguments are just asinine.  Somebody says, trying to fight RAW with RAW, I guess, paraphrasing:  the rules for selling things are perfectly clear.  You sell an item for "1/2 the gp you paid.  If you used prestige points for example to get something for 0 gp, you sell it back for 0 x 1/2 = 0." 

Wait, what?!  So ... if I kill the red dragon and take the beautiful tapestry in her lair and try to sell it to the king who is trying to redecorate his manorhouse, I get, by this calculation, 0 gp.  Good rule, man, good rule.

[zook1shoe]

Yeah, what you paid for something and what it's worth is totally different.

I could buy some bread from Bob the pig farmer for 1 gold. That doesn't mean the bread is worth 1 gold, only I paid for it.

I believe Craft (alchemy) is allowed, how much can you sell those for? Since you didn't buy it at all.

the answer to is there a gold exploit in PFS is no. Always. Unless you have campaign documentation, you only have an amount of gold equal to the amount earned on all your chronicle sheets plus your day jobs plus other boons. If you think you've found a way around that you're wrong.

Also, w the fix, you either can't sell any equipment since it's not from the chronicle sheet/day jobs/boons. And what the hell is 'campaign documentation'?

But if you can sell things and it goes on the chronicle sheet, wouldn't that have originally applied to selling pure gold items?

[Unbeliever]

NO!  The problem is SOLVED!  In fact, there NEVER WAS A PROBLEM.  Weren't you paying attention?

[zook1shoe]

  is that sarcasm or being serious?

[Unbeliever]

Total sarcasm.  Although something of a failure, it seems.  Mostly I was trying to highlight the "it doesn't work b/c I say it doesn't work now shut up [plugs fingers in ears]" mentality that the quote from the Paizo thread exemplified. 

[zook1shoe]

thats what i was leaning towards... but my brain has been a little annoyed since that ruling.

i wish he would maybe admit that this slipped through? and move on by making a ruling statement?

"I realize that this may be seen as doing this, but that is not an option anymore. You can no longer receive more than half of the value of an item when selling it, excluding rebuilding...."

yeah, that's a tough one to write w/o fucking something thing up.

[Unbeliever]

The simplest solution, I think, is something about acknowledging that the weight of objects is not literal and a bit of an abstraction.  Or, saying that the value of a created product trumps whatever its raw materials are.  You can make any number of in-world hand wavey justifications for it (e.g., the different purity of the gold, various other materials worked in that account for the weight but that are abstracted away from the game, and so on).  That'd be a sort of order of operations thing, go to the material weight only when another price/value of the object is not listed.

By the way, what's the actual example?  It's like a mace made of pure gold, right?  I know those things existed in Faerun, but really, who makes a weapon (or really anything) entirely out of gold? 

[Kajhera]

Ehm, PFS wouldn't let you sell the tapestry you found in the red dragon's lair, no. You'd get it accounted for in the gold pieces of your chronicle sheet, and possibly have them as an option for something you could buy with those gold pieces to abstract finding it / having access to it.

PFS handles wealth differently from a non-PFS campaign that is still Pathfinder. Crafting (for the most part) isn't allowed, for example, except as a check that earns a certain amount of additional wealth on your sheet based on your roll at the end of an adventure. Item creation feats aren't allowed and anything requiring them gets an alternate. And its rules on wealth are what they said. Not Pathfinder's rules, Pathfinder Society's.

Notsure what campaign documentation is but it might be some alternate form of accounting vs chronicle sheets. Generally speaking for most PFS characters they won't have any equipment that isn't purchased with wealth from a chronicle sheet aside from the 150 starting gold?

You guys are coming across as not playing PFS, which is what the ruling was for, and in which context it's ... entirely by the rules and reasonable. It actually isn't a pathfinder-in-general ruling.

[zook1shoe]

I used kamas, since it had a great profit for a weapon. But realized anvils have about the largest profit

[zook1shoe]

The main gaming I've played for the last couple years is PFS

[Unbeliever]

You guys are coming across as not playing PFS, which is what the ruling was for, and in which context it's ... entirely by the rules and reasonable. It actually isn't a pathfinder-in-general ruling.

I don't play PFS at all.  So, I defer to others on that.  I'm not annoyed by the ruling.  I already noted some ready responses to it other than the obvious one, which amounts to "cute, but let's not do that."    I'm annoyed by the tenor of the responses, though, which include an air of smugness and moral high grounding which I think is both unwarranted and lets the game designers off the hook for doing their job.  If this was the only silly rule in Pathfinder, I'd probably feel differently.  I'd also probably feel differently if I didn't believe that min/maxing was, overall, something of a positive endeavor. 

Ehm, PFS wouldn't let you sell the tapestry you found in the red dragon's lair, no. You'd get it accounted for in the gold pieces of your chronicle sheet, and possibly have them as an option for something you could buy with those gold pieces to abstract finding it / having access to it.

This seems just like semantics to me.  You get some value for the loot you find in the course of the adventure, right?  I mean, it's still D&D (Pathfinder, whatever, you know what I mean).  If you can't sell things at all, then Zook's exploit wouldn't even get off the ground.  It'd be a very short rules discussion. 

But, the response that the value of an object automatically equals the amount you paid for it, making the resell value of it half what you actually paid for, is asinine.  It means that the magic diadem that was a gift for rescuing that elven princess (again, I'm assuming there's still adventuring in PFS) is literally worthless.  There is no value for loot found during adventuring.  That seems ... unlikely to me.  The accounting system is just their way of doing an orderly abstraction from all of this, and not all that different from what a lot of tables do.

[zook1shoe]

In PFS, treasure found is pooled in the end and those are sold for whatever. You get your share. If you want an item, you can use your share of gp to buy it off your XP sheet. This prevents in-fighting over items. That's also why the tapestry is 'worthless', since it's already been died to the final gp given. Fluff-wise, you could keep it or other non-mechanical things. I made a doll monster's head into a helmet that flips down like in Gladiator.

Basically between games, you can buy and sell your equipment. That's when I'd buy my solid gold kamas and sell them. I always recorded.it, but in PFS, you aren't required to record items under 25gp.

The problem w selling everything at half what you paid for is w items that weren't purchased individually or that have charges.

Ex. "My wand of magic missile w 25 charges is sold for 375? Or is it based on the charges left, so like 188? Cuz that's not part of the ruling. Hmm, I'm confused!" -Gandalf the Not-so-Gray, NG Human Wizard 2

What if you want to sell your cooking pan from your bloodrager kit? Well you didn't buy it individually, part of a set, so sell it at what?

[StreamOfTheSky]

PFS just banned the gold exploit, in case any of you were using it

here

Turns out it was me that actually got the thing changed. I feel like I've accomplished a mission to fix horrible loopholes

Man, that thread is harsh.  If they think reddit is bad, please never let them find us.

Wow, those pretentious assholes think someone is horrible for pointing out a flaw in the rules, as if they're doing it to cheat (protip: If you want to benefit from something sketchy, the best course of action is to NOT point it out to all who will listen).  Thanks for reminding me why I stopped posting on that cesspool of a message board.

I'd like to think they're just stupid and Comically Missing The Point.  But the paizo community's attacks on players error-checking their work because they cannot take legitimate criticism is well documented already, so them trying to conflate advocating for a bug fix with dirty rotten munchkin'ing in order to not make the designers look bad is sadly all too deliberate.

[zook1shoe]

another player and i were the only ones who knew. then this guy and the GM for that game were curious. so i explained...

showing them the UE, i told them that i would buy a solid gold weapon, then sell the weapon as pure gold.

UE pg 53 (solid gold items = 10x normal price)
UE pg 93 (pile o' gold = 50gp/lb)

no need for the PFS illegal crafting rules. no need to break the weapon down, nothing. just buy, sell, profit.

----

but whatever, there are trolls everywhere and not one seems to realize that the fault is in the writing, not in players finding them.

----

looking back, part of me wishes i hadn't done as much to draw attention to the issue.

[Libertad]

Pathfinder also brought us this silly image of elf/gnome courtship:



If this is actually detracting from the thread, I'll stop.

[zook1shoe]

Really? That's a great find, weird, but great.

I'm not sure why, but I see a little bit of Willow Offgood in the halfling, how he's holding his arm.