Venture-Captain, Michigan—Mt. Pleasant
|
Given that they are looking for gems they might be able to use for making sage gems, it is possible they would like already magical gems to study the ways of enchantment on them and if the gem itself has already borne an enchantment it might make it suitable to disenchant then re-enchant. Until Mike or John gives an official answer, I'm going to run my tables by allowing magic gems. As others have said, expensive gems are few and far between even if you allow magical ones.
|
Agreed. And I would probably allow it, as finding actual gemstones in a scenario is pretty rare.
Technically, you might be able to go out and buy a gem worth enough gp and then turn that in for the box. Not sure how I would handle that one, but if it would be allowed, youd definitely have to actually pay the gold. No keeping the gold AND getting the box. :P
|
Agreed. And I would probably allow it, as finding actual gemstones in a scenario is pretty rare.
Technically, you might be able to go out and buy a gem worth enough gp and then turn that in for the box. Not sure how I would handle that one, but if it would be allowed, youd definitely have to actually pay the gold. No keeping the gold AND getting the box. :P
John's already answered that last bit. No using gold, spells, abilities or what not to complete the missions. The success needs to be part of the scenario.
E.G. you can't go find acrandim noble to recruit just because you are in Absalom. The noble needs to be part of the scenario.
|
|
Agreed. And I would probably allow it, as finding actual gemstones in a scenario is pretty rare.
Technically, you might be able to go out and buy a gem worth enough gp and then turn that in for the box. Not sure how I would handle that one, but if it would be allowed, youd definitely have to actually pay the gold. No keeping the gold AND getting the box. :P
John's already answered that last bit. No using gold, spells, abilities or what not to complete the missions. The success needs to be part of the scenario.
E.G. you can't go find acrandim noble to recruit just because you are in Absalom. The noble needs to be part of the scenario.
Must have missed that part. Thanks for the heads up. :)
|
|
It is amazing the lengths some people will go to to attempt to regulate fun.
These aren't supposed to be super duper rare and difficult accomplishments here folks, just deeds that support the general feel and "agenda" of your faction.
Sheesh.
Hey, I'm not trying to ruin anyone's fun. I'm just offering my best guess as to the intended difficulty level of the challenge. Some of the challenges on the cards are easy, some are harder. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but at least I made an attempt to understand it in the context of the story.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know, it isn't about regulating fun. To say that implies that certain people go out if their way to restrict fun. And if I weren't extremely confident that I provide players a fun experience most if the time, that could be taken as insulting.
Games have rules. Whether its Chess, Kick-the-Can, Axis and Allies, or Pathfinder.
So by the very definition of what a game even is, the fun had therein is regulated in respect to following the rules. Indeed it is a general thought that most of us can agree on, that if someone willfully does not follow the rules of whatever game you are playing, its considered cheating, and that hampers the fun of most other people playing with them.
So it can easily be said, that knowing and following the rules of whatever game you are playing, actually enhances the fun. It frees you up to ve creative, within the rules, and engenders more fun.
In this case, without clear rules or direction, we have table variation. Something that most people loathe. In this case, its going to be really hard and impractical to build a character concept dependent on a specific interpretation of a faction card, so table variation isn't harmful to any fun based on how the game rules work.
Having a discussion on why I would rule a certain way, is not trying to regulate fun, but rather explaining my interpretation if a rule without a clear definition.
So let's stop trying to shame people into stopping rules discussions.
|
About what counts as a "gem" in Pathfinder, there is actually a kind of guideline in the Core Rulebook. It's on page 400, in the section disgussing "Building a Treasure Hoard". It lists several types of gemstones based on "inherent value" of material, though it also notes that any type of gemstone can have more or less value based on its quality. Anyway, the list is as follows:
Low-Quality Gems (10 gp): agates; azurite; blue quartz; hematite; lapis lazuli; malachite; obsidian; rhodochrosite; tigereye; turquoise; freshwater (irregular) pearl
Semi-Precious Gems (50 gp): bloodstone; carnelian; chalcedony; chrysoprase; citrine; jasper; moonstone; onyx; peridot; rock crystal (clear quartz); sard; sardonyx; rose, smoky, or star rose quartz; zircon
Medium Quality Gemstones (100 gp): amber; amethyst; chrysoberyl; coral; red or brown-green garnet; jade; jet; white, golden, pink, or silver pearl; red, red-brown, or deep green spinel; tourmaline
High Quality Gemstones (500 gp): alexandrite; aquamarine; violet garnet; black pearl; deep blue spinel; golden yellow topaz
Jewels (1,000 gp): emerald; white, black, or fire opal; blue sapphire; fiery yellow or rich purple corundum; blue or black star sapphire
Grand Jewels (5,000 gp or more): clearest bright green emerald; diamond; jacinth; ruby
So yeah, pearls in general are included. How this relates to magic items, I'm not going to ponder.
|
|
I say no, because the cost isn't based on them being Gems, rather magical items. So once they become a wondrous item, mechanically they are no longer a gem.
Are you being sarcastic here? I can't tell. Is what you are trying to say that a Magic Gem is not a Gem?
My 2 cents. Elemental Gems aren't terribly common in Scenarios. They are very clearly gems. The Faction does not say the gem must be non magical. If you need a flavor reason, I liked when someone said magic gems could be research to help learn about enchanting other gems.
Since the only thing the card mentions is value, and doesn't say anything about excluding magic, and the faction card rules explicitly say to err on the side of the player, I'm very suprised at the number of people here saying they woulnd't allow it.
Pathfinder seems to define pearls as gems explicitly in the rules. How is the question not answered by that?
I am not being sarcastic. They want GEMS with a worth of so much. Not magical items.
The gem for a pearl of power is not worth much if anything. Steven Huffstuttler said it best above. The creation of a Pearl of Power, an Elemental Gem, or an Ioun Stone do not mention a cost for the various pearls, gems or stones. Therefore, they would be considered something found in a spell component pouch.
In a home game, if someone wanted to make a Pearl of Power or an Elemental Gem, I would likely make at least 50% of the crafting cost the cost of the Gem, and I may make them go find the gem somewhere.
However, this is PFS. As such, we only have the rules as written to deal with. And since the faction card is not 100% clear, thus the OPs question, we are left with Table Variation.
Since technically, RAW, the value of a Pearl of Power, Elemental Gem, or Ioun Stone is 100% magic, then the Gem itself holds no value.
That's my interpretation. I expect other GMs may rule it differently, and I'm fine with that.
|
|
What about Gems that hold value because they are relics? or part of a famous persons horde? A lot a Gems value isn't always in its material but the history and other factors. I mean hey this isn't why Society has the bad rules lawyer rep or anything.
Pathfinder doesn't get that granular. In the real world Gems like you discuss are already stupid expensive, and so add a multiplier because its owned by a famous person likely doesnt matter in game terms.
Likely you will get just a value for a gem and not why it has that value.
|
|
I still don't see anywhere on the faction card where they make that distinction, Andrew. It being a magic item does not make it not a gem.
I don't see how the faction card isn't clear. It doesn't exclude magic gems, end of story. You think that maybe it should, based upon what you think the faction really wants, but is not what the rules are. And since we're RAW, we can't add extra restrictions, even if we think they make a lot of sense.
This game is largely exclusive, not inclusive. If you want to play the, "it doesn't say" game, then I'll throw back that it doesn't specifically include magical gems. More importantly, gems whose whole value is determined by the magic, not the gem.
Its actually your onus to price they should be included as the precedence of game rules work.
|
Except when the Writers say to be lenient on the players side which seems to be inclusive not exclusive.
*ding ding ding*
This is like exhibit A of why some people roll their eyes when they hear someone mention society play.
Paizo gives explicit instructions to be lenient. Lawyer it to death anyway.
|
|
Except when the Writers say to be lenient on the players side which seems to be inclusive not exclusive.
*ding ding ding*
This is like exhibit A of why some people roll their eyes when they hear someone mention society play.
Paizo gives explicit instructions to be lenient. Lawyer it to death anyway.
I know right? Or like the Argument over if a Tengu could be yellow.
|
|
Except when the Writers say to be lenient on the players side which seems to be inclusive not exclusive.
The note to be lenient is to not get too pedantic about definition of noble or noble servent or slave or stuff like that.
And leniency is always in the interpretation of each individual being lenient.
In this case, I dont feel gems whose whole value is based on magic fits the gem of a certain value goal. My leniency is in allowing items that I dont typically consider gems, mainly because the GMG includes those items in the gemstone lists.
You can rule it differently if you wish. And I'm fine with that.
But the aggression towards my opinion is getting out of hand.
|
|
I also posted the Dictionary definition of Gems which included semi precious stones, so I don't understand how you are being lenient.
If the dictionary and the GMG says its a gem what qualifies you or any of us to say otherwise? I can understand if you rule that magic value doesn't count but the arguing against the GMG and the English Language Dictionary doesnt make sense to me.
|
|
Linguistic, Common Parlance, and Scientific Terminology differ in a great many cases. The books are written in English though and I'm sure more writers pass English class then advanced Mineralogy courses it's a logical step they were using the dictionary definition after all we don't hear them saying Corundum, or Chalcedony very much either.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the item says "Gemstone of Awesomeness" then by definition it's a gemstone.
Does the faction only want nonmagical gemstones? Doesn't say so on the faction card. They're interested in all expensive gemstones. When in doubt, the "err on the side of leniency" clause says to allow it.
Is a pearl a gem? This is the tricky one, because
a) in the real world, nope.
b) in PF books, pearls are heaped alongside gems.
c) pearls of power are way more common than all other gems combined on chronicle sheets, so this might feel a bit easy.
I'd still allow it, because "err on the side of liencency", and all the places that list pearls as gems raise sufficient doubt to make it a possibility.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Linguistic, Common Parlance, and Scientific Terminology differ in a great many cases. The books are written in English though and I'm sure more writers pass English class then advanced Mineralogy courses it's a logical step they were using the dictionary definition after all we don't hear them saying Corundum, or Chalcedony very much either.
You can rule it however you wish at your table. That's perfectly legit. Please extende the same courtesy.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
Doing it with a Pearl of Power feels kinda easy, but that doesn't mean that's wrong. The goals aren't sorted in order of intended-easy to intended-hard.
And some of the other goals on the Scarab Sages card will not come up often; possession is super-rare, haunts aren't all that common, and Sky Key pieces aren't to be found in many adventures either.
So maybe this goal was meant to be flavourful but easy? The other factions also have a couple of those.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I stand by my earlier comments, I think some people are going out of their way to justify making it more difficult than it needs to be.
It is supposed to be a more fun, more consistently accessible form of flavor for the players to feel like they are actually doing things to support their factions. I don't think the idea is to try to read them in such a way to make them needlessly difficult, unlikely or specific.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Minnesota—Minneapolis
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I went through the 15 scenarios I own (1 season 0, 3 season 1, 3 season 3, 2 season 4, 3 season 5, 3 season 6). Sorry, not a very complete sample.
In each case, I did a search for gem, jewel, pearl.
Of those:
8 had no gems, jewels or pearls
1 had a priceless pearl (plot device) and multiple pearls too small to qualify
3 had a magical gem/pearl/etc where not value on the raw gem was given (two were pearls of power)
1 had an Ioun Stone
1 had gems listed as treasure that were not valuable enough to qualify
1 had a magical gem that gave the value of the gem and it was high enough to qualify
In one of the cases with a magical gem there were also mundane gems in the highest tier that could qualify if out of tier or at the bottom of the high tier.
One case out of 15 scenarios that if you were at exactly the right level or playing up, you could get a mundane gem that qualified.
Hopefully there are more gems in the scenarios I don't have. This task seems one of the more difficult mostly because it doesn't appear that most scenarios specifically list gems.
It would be great if someone with a broader sample of scenarios could do an inventory.
|
|
There is a season 3 scenario which contains a valuable magical gem which can be purchased with gold or a whole lot of PP. It's type is named and it even falls under the geologist definition. Would that one qualify?
Yes, I'm sure that one would fall under everyone's interpretation of the criteria, as the worth of the gem itself is high.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I stand by my earlier comments, I think some people are going out of their way to justify making it more difficult than it needs to be.
Or people are of the opinion that pearls are not gems. Both are viable options, and I would be fine with either ruling at my table as a player.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
I find it a bit odd to classify pearls as gems, but that seems to be the way the game is written.
From a flavour perspective, I don't see any obstacles though. Pearls can be enchanted in several ways. So they might certainly be of interest for research into making new sage jewels.
Likewise for all the other magical gems. The Scarab Sages are clearly involved in a massive research project into making new sage jewels. Any magical gem might be valuable to a thorough study of all the ways that gems can be enchanted. Which in turn might lead to the Sage Jewel 2.0
|
|
By design, the Faction Journal Cards include a variety of goals, some which include very precise instructions and
some that rely on interpretation. This is to allow PCs to have many opportunities to fulfill these goals, rather than
forcing them to play a specific adventure to complete their cards. Err on the side of leniency when ruling whether or
not a PC fulfilled a faction objective; for example, defeating an undead creature does not necessarily mean striking
the killing blow, and someone who actively contributes to the combat almost certainly qualifies. Any skill check DCs
associated with a goal are independent of and do not completely replace any other DCs that appear in a scenario.Recover a gem worth at least 400 gp plus 100 gp per level you possess during an adventure.First level Pearl is worth $1000 (or a minimum of $500 for the gem), a Second level $4000 (or a minimum of $2000 for the gem according to standard Magic Item Creation rules).
So at a minimum a First Level pearl covers 1st level characters. Second level pearl covers up to 15th level characters.
Of course you have to recover (aka find) the gem in the adventure as purchasing it at a magic shop or from your faction doesn't count (unless that encounter is written into the Scenario).
Stephen, I am looking at the magic item creation rules, and, technically, the Pearl of Power has no cost for any sort of material component, the cost is purely based on the level of the spell recovered.
Ability: Bonus spell
Base Price: Spell level squared × 1,000 gp
Example: Pearl of power
So, in answer to someone asking when a Gemstone of Magical Ability is not a gemstone? When it is a Wondrous Item with no material component cost for any sort of mundane gemstone included.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, now that I stirred up this question, my character who stood to benefit or miss out also got possessed in the same scenario. Since I figure that's the more difficult one on the scarab sages card, and you can only get credit for one at a time, I'm not even looking for credit this time around.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I stand by my earlier comments, I think some people are going out of their way to justify making it more difficult than it needs to be.
It is supposed to be a more fun, more consistently accessible form of flavor for the players to feel like they are actually doing things to support their factions. I don't think the idea is to try to read them in such a way to make them needlessly difficult, unlikely or specific.
Sure, but while you and some others see a pearl of power not qualifying for that objective as being needlessly difficult, others see it as being too permissive.
Neither point of view is wrong, and ultimately its not that big of a deal either way. Both sides have really well justified opinions.
|
|
The problem is, that there is no way to determine the value of the actual Gem though. The magic on the Gem has value, and that's what the magic item value represents. But the gem itself is impossible to determine.
But the card does not say "non magic gem" or "non magic gem value of", it just says recover a gem worth at least xxx value.
If it is enchanted, it is a gem worth xxx value. The enchantment doesn't make it not a gem, and the card doesn't say that it must be non magical, so I am just confused as to why there is a barrier being imposed here that isn't called out anywhere.
|
|
You've been quite clear and borderline insulting in your position in this. I'm just explaining my position. Feel free to disagree, but please respect my right to interpret it differently from you.
Your stance (and those that agree with you) do not differentiate the cost of magic and the gem. You feel its the same item and that it should apply.
My stance (and those who agree with me) is that the value of the gem is separate from the magical value if the item. And unless you can find a way to define the value of the gem apart from the magic, then you have no way to tell.
I would respect your opinion at your table. Please respect mine.
|
|
See my response to you above Stephen.
At best, we can only assume the masterwork value of an object to be roughly 50gp to 100gp, as that seems to be a standard for masterwork items.
Since raw materials could be any number if reagents for scribing a magic circle, rare fluids to douse your gem in or inks to scribe sigils in the gem, etc, there is no definitive way to determine exact value of the gem itself.
I stand by that.
The raw materials most certainly include the pearl and any number of other unnamed reagents that dress, prepare, and/or otherwise used in the enchantment process.
All of that costs half the base price. And we dont know what percentage of that, if any, is the pearl.
I think that suggesting the pearl might be worth nothing at all is not exactly lenient as suggested in the card.
I'll mark the OP as FAQ candidate, and sincerely hope the powers that be make a rule about this. Not only because the gem issue itself, but because I think that, right now, PFS is being too lenient with the definition of leniency.
|
|
I don't think anyone's saying that the pearl by itself has no value. But given that we don't know the details of how crafting is made, we have no clue how much of the cost of a PoP is the value of the pearl. Given that the estimates of a pearl upthread are easily below 100*CL, I stand by Andrew in not allowing PoPs to count for this faction quest.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Minnesota—Minneapolis
|
To me, it really comes down to how difficult is the task without including the cost of magical enchantment.
I do not own enough scenarios to know this. I already did a survey of the scenarios that I own, and the task was much more difficult if you did not include magical gems at their full enchanted value. Over half the scenarios had no gems listed as part of the treasure.
If we do not count magical gems I fear it may make the gem task the hardest to complete on the journal card. Personally, I think the possession task should probably be the most difficult.
If someone could do a more complete inventory of how many scenarios have gems that would qualify, it would really help me decide if it is being too strict to not include magical gems.