So I have a player itching to do Lyrics of Extinction because he heard there is a Chronicle item - +2 Cloak of Charisma, an item traditionally part of Pathfinder. Other items have come up as well such as a Potion of See Invisibility, again not traditionally part of Pathfinder. As a GM how should I handle them? Equate them as a unique item and let them buy it? If so would a +2 Cloak of Charisma stack with a headband of Charisma?

They're supposed to be able to buy the Pathfinder version of the item, so the cloak would let them buy the headband of charisma. If the price is different from 3.5 to PFRPG, you need to pay the new cost as well. I know I've seen Mark respond to this type question before with this, but unfortunately, I can't find it while at work this morning.

Either item would confer a +2 enhancement bonus, so they would not stack, even if permitted.

I guess my first comment is to point out that a player who seeks to play a certain scenario because of prior knowledge of Chronicle access is engaging in a mode of cheating.

As for the specific issue: items which don't exist in Pathfinder can't be bought; the 3.5 chronicles are still good for experience, prestige, and boons, but not 3.5-only items. When unique items *are* included on a Chronicle, they are defined as such (the Braid of Masters, for example).

To the question on stacking: they would not, since both are enhancement bonuses. It's a moot point in this case, of course.

These items are converted to the Pathfinder equivalent at the Pathfinder prices. So, cloak of charisma becomes headband of charisma +2. You don't get to "keep" the old slots or costs now that the rules have been updated.

Also - playing a scenario that you've read about, or just to get an item on the Chronicle, is meta-gaming, and should be discouraged. (Probably won't reoccur now that the impetus is gone, anyway.)

These items are converted to the Pathfinder equivalent at the Pathfinder prices. So, cloak of charisma becomes headband of charisma +2. You don't get to "keep" the old slots or costs now that the rules have been updated.

Thanks Scott. This is correct. ^^^^

Thanks for the quick response guys. How about that Potion of See Invisibility? Does that become a scroll? Im not sure which scenario has it but Ive heard it talked about.

Thanks for the quick response guys. How about that Potion of See Invisibility? Does that become a scroll? Im not sure which scenario has it but Ive heard it talked about.

Yes

Thanks again!

btw... your doing an awesome job Mike. Love the new season!

Thank you for the compliment. It is appreciated.

Thanks for the quick response guys. How about that Potion of See Invisibility? Does that become a scroll? Im not sure which scenario has it but Ive heard it talked about.

Remind me why there can't be a potion of see invisibility?

Because its range is "personal". You can't make potions/oils out of Personal spells. Inconveniently, this isn't covered in the description of potions in the Magic Items chapter of the CRB - it's only in the potions subsection of the magic item creation section of the Magic Items chapter of the CRB.

Also that rule is dumb and I wish it didn't exist. :/

It can duplicate the effect of a spell of up to 3rd level that has a casting time of less than 1 minute and targets one or more creatures or objects.

See invisibility has a range of personal. Just like you can't have a potion of shield.

Huh... interesting. See Invisibility would seem to be a perfect spell to have work with a potion.

I can make a potion of Ray of Frost, drink it, and essentially cast Ray of Frost at someone, but a potion of see invisibility, which affects my sight, can't be made.

Weird.

Huh... interesting. See Invisibility would seem to be a perfect spell to have work with a potion.

I can make a potion of Ray of Frost, drink it, and essentially cast Ray of Frost at someone, but a potion of see invisibility, which affects my sight, can't be made.

Weird.

Its one of those weird little things that is an obvious houserule, but you just have to try to ignore the inconsistency of in PFS.

I'm curious though if it was the potion making rules, or the target of see invisibility that changed from 3.5 to make the potion illegal by RAW.

Huh... interesting. See Invisibility would seem to be a perfect spell to have work with a potion.

I can make a potion of Ray of Frost, drink it, and essentially cast Ray of Frost at someone, but a potion of see invisibility, which affects my sight, can't be made.

Weird.

Actually, as the recipient of the potion is considered the target, drinking a potion of ray of frost would just deal 1d3 cold damage to you, not allow you to shoot a ray.

But yeah, I totally agree on the weirdness. Personal spells seem like the BEST candidates for potionification (yay new word!), not ones that should be prohibited.

I can make a potion of Ray of Frost, drink it, and essentially cast Ray of Frost at someone...

Not someone, yourself. The imbiber is always considered the target of a potion.

I do agree that the lack of personal only spells from potions is screwy, as they make the most sense when you're forced to target yourself with the results of the potion anyways.

Thank you for the compliment. It is appreciated.

You smell nice.

Andrew Christian wrote:

Huh... interesting. See Invisibility would seem to be a perfect spell to have work with a potion.

I can make a potion of Ray of Frost, drink it, and essentially cast Ray of Frost at someone, but a potion of see invisibility, which affects my sight, can't be made.

Weird.

Actually, as the recipient of the potion is considered the target, drinking a potion of ray of frost would just deal 1d3 cold damage to you, not allow you to shoot a ray.

But yeah, I totally agree on the weirdness. Personal spells seem like the BEST candidates for potionification (yay new word!), not ones that should be prohibited.

Which makes it even weirder.

Jiggy wrote:

Personal spells seem like the BEST candidates for potionification (yay new word!), not ones that should be prohibited.

Which makes it even weirder.

This is exactly why they can't be potions.

Look at this list that could be made potions if Jiggy had his way:

[highlights] true strike, mirror image, lead blades, blink, divine favor, false life, longstrider, shield

And that's... bad?

Andrew Christian wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

Personal spells seem like the BEST candidates for potionification (yay new word!), not ones that should be prohibited.

Which makes it even weirder.

This is exactly why they can't be potions.

<blink>

badwrongfun

Is it really hard to see why a true-striking, lead-blade wielding, mirror imaged barbarian could be unsettling to some?

And that's... bad?

I agree. Why is that bad?

It seems silly to allow a potion of Lightening Bolt, which would hurt the imbiber, but not one of Aspect of the Bear.

Not having personal range spells available as potions is a good thing. Every class needs stuff to make it unique. This leaves something special for spellcasters.

Jiggy wrote:

And that's... bad?

I agree. Why is that bad?

It seems silly to allow a potion of Lightening Bolt, which would hurt the imbiber, but not one of Aspect of the Bear.

Why not invest in UMD and use a scroll?

I merged the threads on this topic.

Its one of those weird little things that is an obvious houserule, but you just have to try to ignore the inconsistency of in PFS.

I'm curious though if it was the potion making rules, or the target of see invisibility that changed from 3.5 to make the potion illegal by RAW.

A minor correction. This is not a "inconsistent, obvious houserule of PFS." PFS follows exactly what is found in the Core Rulebook. On page 551, under Creating potions, it advises, "The imbiber of the potion is both the caster and the target. Spells with a range of personal cannot be made into potions."

And that's... bad?

One can argue whether its good or bad. But it would certainly significantly change the game.

Do barbarians really need more ways to increase their damage? Do insanely high AC characters need access to shield?

One of the significant benefits that a ranger gets is access to all sorts of cool spells that can`t be put into a potion. If they could be potionified they just lost a factor that makes them competitive.

Saint Caleth wrote:

Its one of those weird little things that is an obvious houserule, but you just have to try to ignore the inconsistency of in PFS.

I'm curious though if it was the potion making rules, or the target of see invisibility that changed from 3.5 to make the potion illegal by RAW.

A minor correction. This is not a "inconsistent, obvious houserule of PFS." PFS follows exactly what is found in the Core Rulebook. On page 551, under Creating potions, it advises, "The imbiber of the potion is both the caster and the target. Spells with a range of personal cannot be made into potions."

Absolutely. I just couldn’t find the spot in the CRB where it mentioned what spells couldn’t be made into potions (I knew there were some).

I'm curious though if it was the potion making rules, or the target of see invisibility that changed from 3.5 to make the potion illegal by RAW.

Actually neither changed from 3.5.

See Invisibility
Divination
Level: Brd 3, Sor/Wiz 2
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Personal
Target: You
Duration: 10 min./level (D)

The imbiber of the potion is both the caster and the target; therefore, spells such as shield other cannot be stored in potion form. Spells with a range of personal cannot be made into potions, so spells such as shield never exist in potion form.

Also, if you look at the potion table on page 230, you'll see that See Invisibility is not listed, so anyone that had been using it as a potion, they were the ones that were using inconsistent house rules...

It shows up on a few PFS Chronicle sheets. Normally, things on PFS Chronicle Sheets can be bought if you have the chronicle.

Agreed about personal spells not being things that should be potionable. See Invisibility should not be Personal, IMO. :)

It shows up on a few PFS Chronicle sheets. Normally, things on PFS Chronicle Sheets can be bought if you have the chronicle.

After spending a half-an-hour checking out every chronicle (except retired scenarios) there is only one with a potion of see invisibility: The Harrowing module. But we'll forgive Crystal, because she's awesome... ;)

I do agree with you AAG, that it shouldn't be personal, but thems the breaks. :/

But what doesn't make any sense is that we are playing in a world of "magical technology", so why aren't magical innovations being made to overcome the no-personal-range-spell-potions rule. Don't you think that in this world, after thousands of years of magical innovation, some wizard would have figured out an "Expeditious Retreat Other" spell so that he could sell potions of Expeditious Retreat to halfings? The first wizard to figure that out would be incredibly rich.

Couldn't almost any personal spell be developed as a range touch spell at one level higher and maintain game balance? As a role-player, this seeming inconsistency just bothers me.

There is a point at which verisimilitude must be sacrificed for game balance. The problem is that the point is different for every player.

Jiggy wrote:

And that's... bad?

I agree. Why is that bad?

It seems silly to allow a potion of Lightening Bolt, which would hurt the imbiber, but not one of Aspect of the Bear.

A potion of lightning bolt would make for an awesome trap, though!

GM: "You find a potion labeled 'Potion of resist energy, electricity'"
Player: "A labelled potion, awesome! I drink it."
GM: "Zzzzzap!"

Or a potion of Force Punch labeled as "Fly."

I've wanted a flask that has the Magic Aura spell permanently cast on it as a magic item for a very long time, with a higher level version of it allowing the user to make a Ludicrously High Spellcraft Check(tm) to change the aura radiated to better conceal the contents...

I've wanted a flask that has the Magic Aura spell permanently cast on it as a magic item for a very long time, with a higher level version of it allowing the user to make a Ludicrously High Spellcraft Check(tm) to change the aura radiated to better conceal the contents...

Well... RPG Superstar should be coming up pretty soon...

But yeah, I totally agree on the weirdness. Personal spells seem like the BEST candidates for potionification (yay new word!), not ones that should be prohibited.

Actually it's because the spells ARE that good so they were designed that they would be only available to a caster spending spell slots to make use of them. Making them a potion opens them up to everyone.

AdAstraGames wrote:

I've wanted a flask that has the Magic Aura spell permanently cast on it as a magic item for a very long time, with a higher level version of it allowing the user to make a Ludicrously High Spellcraft Check(tm) to change the aura radiated to better conceal the contents...

Well... RPG Superstar should be coming up pretty soon...

I'm not eligible, given that I've published products of my own. ;)