RSS RSS RSS RSS Facebook Twitter Email
Paizo People
Kyuss Spawnling

+2 DRaino's page

RPG Superstar 6 Season Dedicated Voter. Organized Play Member. 80 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 Organized Play characters.


Profile
Aliases
Campaigns
Posts
Threads
Favorited by Others
Reviews
Wishlists
Search Posts

Search +2 DRaino's posts:


Fragile magical weapons

Okay, so there has been a little bit of chatter about this in the past, and I have yet to see an official ruling on this one:

Bronze weapons are basically identical to steel, except they have the fragile quality. So we will focus on a bronze short sword.

Now under the Fragile heading, we get this line (emphasis mine):

Quote:
Masterwork and magical fragile weapons and armor lack these flaws unless otherwise noted in the item description or the special material section

Option 1:
The +1 bronze short sword is still labeled as fragile, but does not accidentally break on a roll of 1.

Option 2:
The +1 bronze short sword loses the fragile trait entirely.

Bone items have some specific rules that remove the fragile trait, and those imply the second option, but nothing in the fragile description or the description of bronze (or short sword for that matter) says that the fragile trait is removed, only that the item lacks "these flaws", which as a plural, leads me to believe that it is referring to the flaws conferred by the fragile trait, not the singular flaw that is the fragile trait. And of course the fact that the sentence actually starts with the phrase "magical fragile weapons", which seems to be the wrong wording if ruling 2 were used. In that case, I would assume that the language would read like this instead:

Quote:
Items that are masterwork or magical do not possess the fragile quality, unless the description of the item or special material reads otherwise.

Still, the first option makes the special text in the bone section somewhat pointless.

I tried this thread out in the rules forums, but its enough of a "when would that ever come up?" scenario that I didn't get a very useful for PFS reply, just a pair of conflicting answers as to how they do/would run it.

I can see a good argument for both rulings, but the language used does not actually give me anything solid enough to tell me whether or not I should sink my character's loot into a +1 fragile weapon. Will I still be able to use the feat Disposable Weapon, or at that point I am just doing it as a by the rules way to re-skin my character as an ancient Greek hero instead of a high fantasy hero?
Fragile Trait and Masterwork Quality

Okay, so there has been a little bit of chatter about this in the past, and I have yet to see an official ruling on this one:

Bronze weapons are basically identical to steel, except they have the fragile quality. So we will focus on a bronze short sword.

Now under the Fragile heading, we get this line (emphasis mine):

Quote:
Masterwork and magical fragile weapons and armor lack these flaws unless otherwise noted in the item description or the special material section

Option 1:
The interpretation that I like is also the one that I am less certain of: A +1 bronze short sword is still a fragile weapon, but is in no way penalized for it. This allows continued use the disposable weapon feat, and being magical keeps it from breaking accidentally and makes it more challenging to repair than a normal version.

Option 2:
The interpretation that I don't like, but can see a strong argument for: A +1 Bronze short sword is no longer a fragile weapon, and is functionally identical to a +1 steel short sword.

Bone items have some specific rules that remove the fragile trait, and those imply the second option, but nothing in the fragile description or the description of bronze (or short sword for that matter) says that the fragile trait is removed, only that the item lacks "these flaws", which as a plural, leads me to believe that it is referring to the flaws conferred by the fragile trait, not the singular flaw that is the fragile trait. And of course the fact that the sentence actually starts with the phrase "magical fragile weapons", which seems to be the wrong wording if ruling 2 were used. In that case, I would assume that the language would read like this instead:

Quote:
Items that are masterwork or magical do not possess the fragile quality, unless the description of the item or special material reads otherwise.

Still, the first option makes the special text in the bone section somewhat pointless.

Aside from quoting material from UC and the UEG, can anyone offer insight into this?

Edit: And while I am not trying to be a total rules lawyer about this, it is ultimately for PFS, so while either works fine as a personal ruling, I am actually looking for a hard set of rules so I don't waste money on my PFS character.
Sczarni and not being evil

Okay, just got back from Gencon, loved playing PFS. Barely had time for anything else.

I ended up playing two characters while there:

Tyson - A Chelish thug working for the Sczarni.

Nico - A Halfing ex-bandit from the River Kingdoms working for Andoran

Spoiler:

While playing Nico, I tried to tell the DM that I would coup-de-grace a mission target that the Andorans had to ensure died. The foe had fallen in combat with no sign of remorse, surrender, or mind control. This sparked a short conflict, wherein about half of the other players told me that my character was being evil and that such was not allowed in PFS. The GM handled the situation well, but there was definitely still a sense of bad blood lingering when we parted ways.

Later that day, I got a chance to play Sewer Dragons of Absalom as Tyson. I don't know if I am allowed to tell the faction missions even with spoiler tags, so I won't, but needless to say it was a pretty terrible thing to do.

Despite the entire table agreeing to try and help me complete my mission, I ended up passing on even trying, due to the fact that I would have had to enlist the aid of good characters in the party to do the worst part. We agreed at the table that even though the players wanted to help, the characters would have had no part in it at all. The mission was blatantly evil.

What if I had been playing with the same group from the first game? I know that any given table will have a specific set in mind of what does and doesn't fit PFS, but when a mission is blatantly evil, and furthermore in this specific case, starts an unnecessary fight, how is this good for organized play?

I get it that the Sczarni are pretty nasty folk, but this mission was just bad for table dynamics. In the future, can we please get faction missions that don't have such a high risk of tearing a table apart?