|
According to Jason Bulmahn, there is a tool for use with Use Magic Device. You can read about it Here:Paizo's lead designer say's.... Mr Bulmahn is the fifth post in the thread.
So, if I buy a tome called, "A guide of common magic phrases and activation technique's" as mentioned in his thread, will I get my +2 circumstance bonus?
I imagine the idea would be to read this book in the morning for an hour in order to get the +2 bonus for the rest of the day. It would have to be reread every morning to get this bonus.
|
I imagine the idea would be to read this book in the morning for an hour in order to get the +2 bonus for the rest of the day. It would have to be reread every morning to get this bonus.
Are there any other masterwork tools that work that way?
I would imagine you would need the book open and in hand...
|
|
I imagine the idea would be to read this book in the morning for an hour in order to get the +2 bonus for the rest of the day. It would have to be reread every morning to get this bonus.Are there any other masterwork tools that work that way?
I would imagine you would need the book open and in hand...
In hand would be a problem, I intend to use this with scrolls. You have to have one hand to cast, the other to hold. That is why I was thinking of the one hour a day for use of the rest of the day.
It could be restricted to twelve hours after read for an hour. Maybe, reading for a minute then good for four hours. I am thinking of the duration of Alchemical Grease because it is useful at its price.
I imagine the masterwork tool would not be burdensome.
|
Here's the problem
There was the post you pointed out, which is pay 50 gp and have your +2.
There is also this section in ultimate equipment which came out later
no nonmagical item exists that grants a bonus for all uses
of that skill. For example, just because a certain perfume is
favored by local nobles (granting a +2 circumstance bonus
on Diplomacy checks to influence them) doesn’t mean that
perfume has the same effect on a member of the thieves’
guild, a foreign berserker, or a medusa. Likewise, just because
a fake beard woven by dwarves out of the beards of famous
dwarves may grant a +2 circumstance bonus on Use Magic
Device checks to emulate the dwarven race doesn’t mean the
beard has any effect on using that skill to activate elven items
or paladin items, or to decipher a written spell
tossing it backed to "Damned if i know" territory.
|
|
Here's the problem
There was the post you pointed out, which is pay 50 gp and have your +2.
There is also this section in ultimate equipment which came out later
** spoiler omitted **
tossing it backed to "Damned if i know" territory.
Instead of a book it could be lenses or eyeglasses. The idea is to get the bonus at least for using scrolls. Seeing Jason's post about this has given me hope, we'll see what happens. Whether there is given permission to use this or not.
I only know of a few names of people that could give this permission, I don't know all the rest of them. I might just have to talk with each GM and talk over what the masterwork tool would be and how it would work. That would be a pain before each module due to time constraints.
|
Masterwork Tools are largely an area of "your results may vary", for both players and GMs.
I've encountered players who have a Masterwork Tool for every skill, already pre-factored in to their total skill modifier, who never even mention if they're using the tool when rolling their skill check.
On the other end of the spectrum are GMs who don't allow Masterwork Tools at all, due to the abuse they've seen.
My advice would be to buy your Masterwork Tool, label it something like "MWK Tool, Book, Knowledge (Demons)", and ask your GM when you roll a Knowledge check about Demons how you can add the bonus and if you even have the time to use your book. Or "MWK Tool, Cypher, UMD when reading Arcane Scrolls". There are lots of possibilities.
You can either bring this up at the beginning of the session, if you have lots of Tools, or when making your skill check, if you only have a couple.
Remember, it has to be very limited. I would never allow a Masterwork Tool to grant a flat +2 to UMD, for example, or even a flat +2 when reading scrolls. Some GMs might. I view the 50gp you're spending on such a bonus to be too good of a deal, when similarly functional items are priced much higher.
|
|
For a flat bonus to UMD, i consider the 50 gp to be getting you a small trunk of stuff: an instruction booklet for commonly used magical phrases, a lucky rabbits foot for activating blindly, a chalk tip for wands etc.
for knowledge checks, there's already Pathfinder chronicles from the inner sea world guide.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
As GM this is simple
Wow me and come up with something interesting, something that should work - and I always will give you a +2. There even are cheaper options sometimes - earplugs ! To gain advantages.
Rations in combination with handle animal - love to see it more often. As long as it makes sense - I'm open to it.
Give me a flat +2 MW tool without description and I will throw RAW back at you and flatly deny it.
I know some players don't like this but this is RPG - not everything is mechanical.
And I always try to side with the player - unless I really feel I can't with good conscious.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would only allow it for a specific subset of UMD, scrolls would be fien, but you would need a different one for wands, etc. Ultimate equipment basically suggests narrowed focus within a skill or limit use.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A masterwork tool for UMD in the specific instance of activating scrolls sounds fine to me.
But the book you read hours before the skill use does not. There's no reason not to have ready that book every single day, whenever you're adventuring, and to pass it around to everybody else, too. Everybody in the party could have a +2 circumstance bonus to UMD. That's too powerful for 50 gold.
I would expect a masterwork tool -- where no tool is usually needed -- to require some inconvenience. A scroll requiring a minute to cast rather than a standard action. An extra hand free, or an ally holding something.
You reference alchemical grease. That sounds like a reasonable analogy -- if you want to coat your eyes with something, that costs gold, and deteriorates whether you use it or not, I would allow that. But the idea of taking an extra hour before adventuring -- that's not an inconvenience, because Pathfinder Society adventures never track that. As another game once said, "a Disadvantage that is not ever a disadvantage is not a Disadvantage."
|
|
I've picked up a few after asking local GMs how they felt. Usually people agreed when I told them how restricted my use of these custom items would be:
* dweomermaster's apparati: Mwk tool for UMD when used to activate wands. These thin focusing coils need to be attached to the wand beforehand and require a minute of recalibration.
* fearsome scowl: Mwk tool for Intimidate, but only works when the user is visible. This dark red half-vizard takes the head slot.
|
|
I thank you all for your suggestions. If six people read the book that would take six hours out of the day and unreasonable. I do see your point W/three people reading the book. I did not think of this and I'm glad it was brought up.
If I am penalized for reading the book for a minute the whole party could repeat the process and cast ten minute buffs.
I'm thinking the idea would be a tool designed only for me; Hence, the eye glasses made for my eyes seems plausible. It would take up a slot, used only for scrolls(only for arcane?).
The downside would be I simply keep them on. Perhaps, a penalty of -2 to perception checks. Of course, all this is negotiable.
|
|
Ah, how about both, have my cake and eat it too. Read the book with the glasses on for two hours then, be able to get the bonus for the next 12 hours as long as I have the glasses on with the same -2 penalty to perception checks when casting w/scrolls and UMD. This would also include having the glasses on while reading the book.
The other way around would be to read the book with these glasses on for a minute for four hours a day for the +2 circumstance bonus with the same penalty to perception. In all cases, the glasses would only be used with the book and the bonus could not be administered any other way and the glasses would only be for me.
The two hours of reading in the morning (1/day) would mean that I would have access to the bonus for half a day.
Whereas reading for a minute would give me access to the bonus 24 hours a day in four hour increments. The downside of the minute for fours a day at a time's worth of the bonus would be if time is of the essence, that might restrict the use of this bonus.
Once again, the four hours out of the day is in relation to the alchemical bonus of alchemical grease for four hours at a time.
All for 50 gp, according to the price in the book and having a -2 to perception checks while the glasses are on. As also in all cases, the book must be read with the glasses on and while casting with scrolls(Arcane Scrolls?).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As GM this is simple
Wow me and come up with something interesting, something that should work - and I always will give you a +2. There even are cheaper options sometimes - earplugs ! To gain advantages.
Rations in combination with handle animal - love to see it more often. As long as it makes sense - I'm open to it.Give me a flat +2 MW tool without description and I will throw RAW back at you and flatly deny it.
I know some players don't like this but this is RPG - not everything is mechanical.
And I always try to side with the player - unless I really feel I can't with good conscious.
I hate this with a fiery passion. What one GM thinks is great, another thinks is incredibly lame. So suddenly I get a +2 if MY idea of cool matches a GMs and don't otherwise? That is very, very, very wrong.
|
|
I believe this idea (masterwork tool for UMD) goes along W/the intent of the Ultimate Equipment Guide. Henceforth, everything posted by the administrators is cannon, for example, the sticky threads.
The 2008 thread by Jason and the rules in the UE still coincide W/each other though the UE restricts the 2008 thread.
I don't think I am wrong discussing the idea for use magic device W/mwk tools W/a GM is out of bounds. I believe that is RAW at the least.
I just trying to get something definitive here from someone higher up.
|
|
Is what is sticky in the first threads of this message board or the rules in the blogs in the additional resources?
Even then, if you take away Jason's thread and just look at the rules in the ultimate combat, you have what I leave in the last post. I can always ask a game master what he would except as a mwk tool. I believe I have the right to do so as per the rules in the ultimate combat.
|
Venture-Agent, Colorado—Denver
|
Yeah, sorry. I wasn't trying to be a jerk or anything. If you were at my table and I was GMing, and you had shown me the actual book that these mwk tools were in, and let me know what you wanted to do then I'd probably let you since you had the resources. It just seemed like they weren't PFS kosher.
|
|
The Mwk tools are in the UE, at least the latest rules with more restrictions.
Originally, I didn't really take notice to this because of the ambiguity that the tools leave to the game. It would be up to the player and the game master asked to decide what the tools would actually do and so on.
I was hoping to ovoid this process of a possible "too long of a discussion before the game started" and just bring out a piece of paper as to what the rules would be.
I will print out this whole thread, provided it's not too long, and bring it to the venture Capt. in which has ordered a game day for this Tuesday. When we meet we'll discuss it and we'll see what happens.
It wouldn't be prudent to talk to any GM that's there because most of them come to me for advice. So, that's why I would be talking with the venture Capt. Of whom may be my GM after all.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Between that thread and what UE says, the rule is basically "you can have a +2 bonus when using your masterwork tool, but be mindful that whatever you choose for your masterwork tool is likely (and should) have some sort of limitation as to how you use the skill in conjunction with the tool".
That could mean:
- a limited number of uses (like the healer's kit) or
- only useful under certain circumstances (like a fake dwarven beard for UMD) or
- something that makes the skill take longer to use (like a book you need to peruse for a minute before using the skill).
This includes PFS, and even though it's subject to table variation with different GMs, if you've got a solid tool that meets one of these limitations (or a similar limitation), it'd be difficult for a GM to say you can't use it.
|
|
I have yet to see someone IRL (great examples here) with "Masterwork Tool: X" who wasn't abusing the rules. And no, they don't ever mention "I pull out my tool in order to...", it's just already included.
Acrobatics is particularly egregious to me, since even *magic* versions can be sub-use specific (ring of jumping).
|
|
I have noticed other players who use a MW Tool will just add it into their skill number, and sometimes even forget that it is there. "What's your Stealth" nets a reply of "+10" which might or might not include a bonus for a Masterwork tool (felt slippers to muffle footsteps perhaps?). This is in effect transfering "control" of the circumstance bonus given by a Masterwork Tool from the Judge to the player, or even to the game mechanic if the player forget's how he gets the total bonus he has.
And chances are pretty good the player doesn't realize there's even an issue (the player may be right afteral)
If a player says "I have a Masterwork tool for this skill", I would expect him to be able to tell me what the tool is and how it's appropriate for this use of the skill and for it to be appropriately limited. I'd expect that to be written down on the sheet as well so that what the tool is doesn't happen to be appropriate for any use of the skill that comes up.
Some players probably aren't aware of that expectation.
|
|
There's a certain mindset that anything in an item's description that isn't a plus sign followed by a number can be safely ignored.and a certain play style that trims down the "extra" bits, so as to not "waste table time on the fluff". Where we give a reply of "20" instead of "I take 10 with a plus 8, plus 2 more for my Masterwork Tool of felt slippers which gives me a 20" because it is just more "in the flow" - keeping the story going.
I think that's well and good, but that players should err on the side of over-informing their GM and letting the GM tell them when it's too much information.
It helps mitigate situations like players assuming they hit (because they didn't know situational modifiers applied to previous hits) or lumping in energy damage when the enemy is immune or resistant.
|
|
But is it a problem that we should address in "teaching the game" - showing the "correct" way of doing something?
Its not one you can, because there is no "the" correct way of doing things at the moment.
I have seen someone pass a MW tool from one PC to another (I've even done this), which makes me wonder - how many people will buy a MW tool for a PC, add in the bonus, then in a later game (maybe next year) buy the tool again and add it to the PCs skill again... and isn't this a problem? or is it? If we never even mention it to the judge, isn't it a problem?
*headscratch* I'm not sure how you go from masterwork tools being passed around to multiplying the tools bonus.
|
|
+1 to players who know their modifiers.
Unfortunately some players know every single bonus that gets applied but seem oblivious to the fact that they don't count in certain situations or even negative modifiers might apply.
Worst offense spotted lately - a fellow player who rolled and then announced a hit.
Yes - he had a 23 - touch attack on a mook.
But he failed to take into account to shoot through an ally (-4 for full cover), into melee (another -4) and that the target was prone on the floor (giving a +4 AC bonus) for a staggering -12 total that was ignored.
And the GM would have just accepted the hit as the player assertively declared a 20+ - despite being very experienced and a GM himself - so should have known better.
Unfortunately I just felt that was a bit much and asked 'innocently' if he had applied the -12 to his roll.
That player didn't even try to cheat - it just didn't occur to him that there was an issue and his hit was not a given. And no - with correct numbers he missed by 1 - darn Dex 14 of the mook.
|
|
I would assume it would be the ones not saying they had a masterwork tool or saying what it was but just adding the bonus in to every use of the skill.
If a player says "I have a Masterwork tool for this skill", I would expect him to be able to tell me what the tool is and how it's appropriate for this use of the skill and for it to be appropriately limited. I'd expect that to be written down on the sheet as well so that what the tool is doesn't happen to be appropriate for any use of the skill that comes up.
A few times I have tried to full disclose how every uncommon detail of my characters worked and I got the distinct impression that everyone wished I hadn't. I know I certainly don't want to listen to the mechanics of every other character at the table when we are trying to get ready to play. I rarely care to listen to it when we are done playing.
I have one character that uses a masterwork tool. It is one of about 8 different mechanics being used to bump a single stat. Since that stat is so high, I sometimes have people ask me how that happens, but I am certain that by the time I end up going through my list everyone has stopped listening.
I have never had anyone complain about the use of the tool once I explained it. I have heard people repeatedly complain about others going on ad nauseum about their character's mechanics. (In fact, people hate it so much that it is a reason to lose a level in Munchkin.)
|
|
The point is, there are enough things that people will argue about here on the boards to easily spend 20 minutes disclosing every possible thing someone might argue about. I know, when I first started playing I would tell my GMs about every little thing I saw an argument about here. I have found that just because some people here think something might or might not work is not a good reason to bring it up to every GM. I find most GMs and players at the table (myself included), really have a bad time when having extended rules discussion at the table.
Your masterwork tool is one little rule in sea of circumstantial rules. If a player is applying it to one use of the skill as it is supposed to be, I can appreciate the fact that he doesn't have to tell me at the start of the game. Just like he doesn't have to tell me some strange spell interaction that he might use, or some magical item contingency, or whatever else might come up that is perfectly within the rules.
If the person is misapplying the rules, as has been said earlier, that is a different story. But I am not prepared to paint everyone with that brush. This isn't really that complicated of a rule.
Like another similar magical item that has been under discussion here, I suspect that many of the people upset about this item are looking for reasons to make it not work. I don't think that GMs should look for (read: make up) reasons to make things not work.
|
|
One thing I have been doing for my PCs, when I setup a macro sheet to copy into Roll20, I also add, at the approp[riate spot in my document, not the macro, how the total number, if it isn't a simple addition (7 ranks, +4 Int, +1 Ioun stone), then I list all the components used to create th etoal, so I can easily answer the question, like "How did you get a +25 to your Trip?"
I copied the component numbers, pasted it into the text field, and someone learned why you don't want to mess with a Lore Warden doing combat maneuvers. ;)
And, since that document is on my Google drive, in the folder for the appropriate PC, I can still access it at a local game, if needed.
|
|
So if a tool is defined, purchasable item for a particular skill--like Masterwork Thieves Tools, climbing kits, Pathfinder Chronicles, etc.--do those also need permission? They are circumstance bonuses, so the theoretical limitations should apply.
But if you tried to tell a rogue that his MW thieves tools don't work on this particular lock because you say so, I think you will have some issues with your players. And honestly, I would side with the players.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Dorothy, I agree that a set of MW thieves' tools would beusable in most circumstances. But there could be exceptions.
Let's say that the mechanisms inside a particular lock are magnetized, and the default thieves' tools are metal and useless. Or, the party prowling around a giant's laboratory encounters an enormous lock, with tumblers the side of your arm. Or maybe a Numerian security locker sports a new-fangled spinning combination lock, where a DC 25 Perception (hearing) check can grant a bonus to hear the tumblers, but thieves' tools cannot.