Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. |
If I wanted to purchase a specific type of armor (i.e. Banded Mail of Luck, etc.), but wanted it crafted out of Mithril, would the total cost be the armor's price (18,900, using the example) plus the normal cost of making an armor from Mithril (in this case, 9000 for a heavy armor)? Just curious how the rules for specific weapons and armor interact with the special material rules for PFS.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I wanted to purchase a specific type of armor (i.e. Banded Mail of Luck, etc.), but wanted it crafted out of Mithril, would the total cost be the armor's price (18,900, using the example) plus the normal cost of making an armor from Mithril (in this case, 9000 for a heavy armor)? Just curious how the rules for specific weapons and armor interact with the special material rules for PFS.
There is no item creation allowed in PFS, so you can't take banded mail of luck out of the Core Rulebook and have it crafted out of mithril. The exception is adding a quality such as energy resistance or fortification to an existing set of armor. But the 'named' armors you may only purchase as-is. If a named armor doesn't start off created from special materials then there's no changing them to include mithril, adamantine, etc.
We don't necessarily like the rule, but that's what is being enforced currently.
|
If I wanted to purchase a specific type of armor (i.e. Banded Mail of Luck, etc.), but wanted it crafted out of Mithril, would the total cost be the armor's price (18,900, using the example) plus the normal cost of making an armor from Mithril (in this case, 9000 for a heavy armor)? Just curious how the rules for specific weapons and armor interact with the special material rules for PFS.There is no item creation allowed in PFS, so you can't take banded mail of luck out of the Core Rulebook and have it crafted out of mithril. The exception is adding a quality such as energy resistance or fortification to an existing set of armor. But the 'named' armors you may only purchase as-is. If a named armor doesn't start off created from special materials then there's no changing them to include mithril, adamantine, etc.
We don't necessarily like the rule, but that's what is being enforced currently.
+1 to what Doug said.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. |
If I wanted to purchase a specific type of armor (i.e. Banded Mail of Luck, etc.), but wanted it crafted out of Mithril, would the total cost be the armor's price (18,900, using the example) plus the normal cost of making an armor from Mithril (in this case, 9000 for a heavy armor)? Just curious how the rules for specific weapons and armor interact with the special material rules for PFS.There is no item creation allowed in PFS, so you can't take banded mail of luck out of the Core Rulebook and have it crafted out of mithril. The exception is adding a quality such as energy resistance or fortification to an existing set of armor. But the 'named' armors you may only purchase as-is. If a named armor doesn't start off created from special materials then there's no changing them to include mithril, adamantine, etc.
We don't necessarily like the rule, but that's what is being enforced currently.
Hey Doug, I know that this is your opinion on the matter of upgrading named armor. It seems that other Venture Captains disagree with you, saying that you can not upgrade named armor period (no upgrades from +2 to +3 or adding on a magical quality). Could you chime in on the other thread regarding named armor? In the end I think this is going to have to be addressed in the FAQ as the rules are ambiguous.
|
|
If I wanted to purchase a specific type of armor (i.e. Banded Mail of Luck, etc.), but wanted it crafted out of Mithril, would the total cost be the armor's price (18,900, using the example) plus the normal cost of making an armor from Mithril (in this case, 9000 for a heavy armor)? Just curious how the rules for specific weapons and armor interact with the special material rules for PFS.There is no item creation allowed in PFS, so you can't take banded mail of luck out of the Core Rulebook and have it crafted out of mithril. The exception is adding a quality such as energy resistance or fortification to an existing set of armor. But the 'named' armors you may only purchase as-is. If a named armor doesn't start off created from special materials then there's no changing them to include mithril, adamantine, etc.
We don't necessarily like the rule, but that's what is being enforced currently.
Hey Doug, I know that this is your opinion on the matter of upgrading named armor. It seems that other Venture Captains disagree with you, saying that you can not upgrade named armor period (no upgrades from +2 to +3 or adding on a magical quality). Could you chime in on the other thread regarding named armor? In the end I think this is going to have to be addressed in the FAQ as the rules are ambiguous.
Rather than adding to the debate, I'll wait for a FAQ post to clarify any perceived disagreement.
|
|
If I wanted to purchase a specific type of armor (i.e. Banded Mail of Luck, etc.), but wanted it crafted out of Mithril, would the total cost be the armor's price (18,900, using the example) plus the normal cost of making an armor from Mithril (in this case, 9000 for a heavy armor)? Just curious how the rules for specific weapons and armor interact with the special material rules for PFS.There is no item creation allowed in PFS, so you can't take banded mail of luck out of the Core Rulebook and have it crafted out of mithril. The exception is adding a quality such as energy resistance or fortification to an existing set of armor. But the 'named' armors you may only purchase as-is. If a named armor doesn't start off created from special materials then there's no changing them to include mithril, adamantine, etc.
We don't necessarily like the rule, but that's what is being enforced currently.
Hey Doug, I know that this is your opinion on the matter of upgrading named armor. It seems that other Venture Captains disagree with you, saying that you can not upgrade named armor period (no upgrades from +2 to +3 or adding on a magical quality). Could you chime in on the other thread regarding named armor? In the end I think this is going to have to be addressed in the FAQ as the rules are ambiguous.
I'd like build what Doug said and being one of those GMs who have be in on another discussion about the concept of upgrading items.
There is a difference on what the poster is asking here, rather than say upgrading. Most of the discussion has been adding other magical properties to named magical arms and armor.
Without going to deep into all of this, these are two different but similar topics. As it stands, were don't allow players to build custom magic items, which is what the original poster wanted.
At this point in time, custom magical items are off the table. That is not to say that it will always be the case. IMO it would make for a large divide from RAW to PFS and that puts us in a uncomfortable position.
|
|
The OP gave the example.
From my standpoint a +1 Holy Longsword is not a custom magical longsword, it is an upgraded +1 longsword.
Option 3 is a custom item and currently not allowed.
4 is not well defined, so I'm going to forgo any position on it.
Now there are some of us that would like the possibility of option three having the capability of being upgradeable to to a higher level of protection, but that is different from lets say making a Adamantine Celestial Armor, or a Full Plate Celestial Armor as those items are not spelled out on the Core Rule book. These would be indeed "custom items" and their descriptions and capabilities would change quite a bit.
Option 2 might see some light if we allowed named items to be upgraded. i.e. adding another magical property to an object that has a magical property.
Developer
|
The difference between 1 and 2 is that 1 follows set rules of generic magic swords.
2 follows guidlines for creating new items, guidelines that are only there to aid a GM. There is no set way to really determine the proper pricing, as often items can be made under those guidelines that end up in the realm of ridiculous.
The magic item creation guidelines are not rules, they are GM aids. They are not akin to the magic weapon pricing rules.
|
|
The difference between 1 and 2 is that 1 follows set rules of generic magic swords.
2 follows guidlines for creating new items, guidelines that are only there to aid a GM. There is no set way to really determine the proper pricing, as often items can be made under those guidelines that end up in the realm of ridiculous.
The magic item creation guidelines are not rules, they are GM aids. They are not akin to the magic weapon pricing rules.
You are meaning #4 instead of #2 here. In that way I fully support you.
However a ring of invisibility and protection +2 is the example given for such under the section talking about "Adding New Abilities" that also talks about further enchanting a +1 longsword into a +2 vorpal longsword.
Here is the relevant section for you:
As you can see there is a well-defined way of handling the pricing here. Meanwhile if you had meant by #4 example, you are correct that it does need a DM to do the pricing and as such would...
Sometimes, lack of funds or time make it impossible for a magic item crafter to create the desired item from scratch. Fortunately, it is possible to enhance or build upon an existing magic item. Only time, gold, and the various prerequisites required of the new ability to be added to the magic item restrict the type of additional powers one can place.The cost to add additional abilities to an item is the same as if the item was not magical, less the value of the original item. Thus, a +1 longsword can be made into a +2 vorpal longsword, with the cost to create it being equal to that of a +2 vorpal sword minus the cost of a +1 longsword.
If the item is one that occupies a specific place on a character's body, the cost of adding any additional ability to that item increases by 50%. For example, if a character adds the power to confer invisibility to her ring of protection 2, the cost of adding this ability is the same as for creating a ring of invisibility multiplied by 1.5.
I'd argue that its defined, but its a stretch to say it's well defined. This information that you have provided from the magic crafting rules front he Core. In reality, its a guide. Just because you can use this table and its rules doesn't mean that the price that you come up with at the end is right. It could be right, or it could be too high or too low.
As I said before, we really need to look at the way things can be "upgraded."
|
Developer
|
Ah, I misunderstood #2. It is allowed under the core, then, but I don't believe it is under PFS. The only PFS guidelines I've seen allow limited upgrading of wonderous items.
I've seen it specified that you can upgrade a Belt of STR +2 to a Belt of STR and DEX +2 or a Belt of STR +4, but not a belt of STR +4 and DEX +2.
This leads me to believe, until the people upstairs say otherwise, that combining two different wonderous items is currently not legal.
I don't think it'd be a terrible thing to allow, so long as the items combined all existed somewhere in the legal resources, but for now it doesn't seem legal.
|
In the case of named magic items, it can be near impossible to equate their "equivalency" for the purposes of adding additional enhancements. For example, Celestial Armor does specify it is +3 with respect to the armor enhancement, but what about the additional Fly ability? What is that worth? What about the shift from medium to light proficiency? Does that have a value?
Since the armor is not specified as being mithral (in fact it is gold or silver) you cannot "piece" out the enhancements to see what they are worth like you can with say +2 mithral full plate of invulnerability.
So what is the adjusted cost for adding another "+" to Celestial armor? Is it just the difference between +3 and +4? If so, why does it get to ignore the cost factors while the platemail does not?
IMHO, for the ease of organized play, the rule restricting upgrades to named items is a good one. YMMV
...The difference between 1 and 2 is that 1 follows set rules of generic magic swords.
2 follows guidlines for creating new items, guidelines that are only there to aid a GM. There is no set way to really determine the proper pricing, as often items can be made under those guidelines that end up in the realm of ridiculous.
The magic item creation guidelines are not rules, they are GM aids. They are not akin to the magic weapon pricing rules.
You are meaning #4 instead of #2 here. In that way I fully support you.
However a ring of invisibility and protection +2 is the example given for such under the section talking about "Adding New Abilities" that also talks about further enchanting a +1 longsword into a +2 vorpal longsword.
Here is the relevant section for you:
As you can see there is a well-defined way of handling the pricing here. Meanwhile if you had meant by #4 example, you are correct that it does need a DM to do the
Sometimes, lack of funds or time make it impossible for a magic item crafter to create the desired item from scratch. Fortunately, it is possible to enhance or build upon an existing magic item. Only time, gold, and the various prerequisites required of the new ability to be added to the magic item restrict the type of additional powers one can place.The cost to add additional abilities to an item is the same as if the item was not magical, less the value of the original item. Thus, a +1 longsword can be made into a +2 vorpal longsword, with the cost to create it being equal to that of a +2 vorpal sword minus the cost of a +1 longsword.
If the item is one that occupies a specific place on a character's body, the cost of adding any additional ability to that item increases by 50%. For example, if a character adds the power to confer invisibility to her ring of protection 2, the cost of adding this ability is the same as for creating a ring of invisibility multiplied by 1.5.
Not to be too nit-picky, but I think what James is saying is that the same section of text that allows a character to upgrade a +1 flaming long sword to a +2 flaming longsword also allows a character to add new abilities to other items.
In fact, the pricing for the +1/+2/+3 sword is on the exact same table as the pricing for every other magic item.
So if we are saying that table is simply advisory to the GM, and no price is actually fixed, then we have to say the same thing about weapons and armor.
And looking at the Guide to Organized Play, Weapons and armor are not called out as the only upgradeable items.
So that leaves me wondering, why do we (or possibly you) assume that adding new abilities to a ring is different than adding new abilities to a sword? Is it that we are "used" to the idea of upgrading a weapon, but the idea of upgrading an amulet is somehow different? I mean a lot of players have problems thinking about a +1 sword of flaming and frost because it seems contradictory. But it's generally considered legal. But many more consider the idea of having an Amulet of Magecraft that also functions as an combined Amulet of proof against detection and Location as something less defined in the rules, even though hard pricing is given for each.
|
Developer
|
So that leaves me wondering, why do we (or possibly you) assume that adding new abilities to a ring is different than adding new abilities to a sword? Is it that we are "used" to the idea of upgrading a weapon, but the idea of upgrading an amulet is somehow different? I mean a lot of players have problems thinking about a +1 sword of flaming and frost because it seems contradictory. But it's generally considered legal. But many more consider the idea of having an Amulet of Magecraft that also functions as an combined Amulet of proof against detection and Location as something less defined in the rules, even though hard pricing is given for each.
I do because of previous posts by coordinators, like my ability belt example. That stuff was set apart. As to why they're set apart, I can't tell you, apart from the fact they are.
Would it be the most terrible thing in the world to allow this for existing items? No. Could it cause GM headaches? I could see that.
Do we have to maintain the slot? Can you have a cloak of resistance and +4 CHA? If this type of thing were allowed, some more guidance would be needed. I'd say body slot can't be changed.
As for named armors and weapons, I would be surprised if anyone would want elven chain that couldn't be magicked up, but at the same time I see the problem with celestial armor and some weapons with an unclear numbered bonus. I'm more likely to be conservative with named armor, just because it's hard to get a uniform rule for these cases without going item by item for every named armor, shield, and weapon.
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
For my example, I purposely chose a named armor WITHOUT a specific material involved (looking through, I can only find three). I understand the reason for not allowing Crafting in PFS and fully support that. However, any item can be "upgraded"... unfortunately the rules are rather strict on what constitutes an upgrade, disallowing some of the abilities of "named" armors and weapons, since they have no "+1, etc." equivalent. Show me where "Luck" or "Collapsible" are on the purchase chart, and I would gladly do it in that fashion. Even the "Dueling" property can be purchased (2 ways!), but some abilities remain locked out by the same process.
In the future, I would rather see properties that can be added to armor and weapons added in the "+1 or + X gp" fashion, with a specific armor as an example, such as Elven Chanmail and Dwarven Plate. Unfortunately, I have to abide by the rules for PFS as set, and both Collapsible and Lucky properties lay out of reach unless you purchase the specific armors, and negate all other armor upgrade/purchases made previous by selling your original armor for 1/2 price.
|
|
looking at the Guide to Organized Play, Weapons and armor are not called out as the only upgradeable items
That may be true, but we all know that is what Josh ruled back in the day and I've seen nothing since to change it.
Sure, there is the rule about forum posts only being suggestions and not official rules, but let's keep in mind that updating the Guide was dropped in Mark's lap at the last moment so some things that required rules updates/clarifications may have been omitted to ensure the document was published in time for the season three launch. Or perhaps the rules on custom magic items is intended for the FAQ.
What I am saying is that it is naive to ignore the fact that there is a "suggestion" that is a rule without being a rule (*eyeroll*). It does not allow customized items from the Wondrous Items list, nor altering/enhancing named items. We/you may/may not like the rule, but it does exist just the same. It does, however allow you to upgrade from one named item to the next, such as upgrading a ring of protection +1 to a +2 by paying the difference. Or you can add a weapon/armor enhancement, from the table, to an existing, non-named item. That may sound like customizing, but there is a subtle difference IMO.
|
|
...The difference between 1 and 2 is that 1 follows set rules of generic magic swords.
2 follows guidlines for creating new items, guidelines that are only there to aid a GM. There is no set way to really determine the proper pricing, as often items can be made under those guidelines that end up in the realm of ridiculous.
The magic item creation guidelines are not rules, they are GM aids. They are not akin to the magic weapon pricing rules.
You are meaning #4 instead of #2 here. In that way I fully support you.
However a ring of invisibility and protection +2 is the example given for such under the section talking about "Adding New Abilities" that also talks about further enchanting a +1 longsword into a +2 vorpal longsword.
Here is the relevant section for you:
As you can see there is a well-defined way of handling the pricing here. Meanwhile if you had meant by #4 example, you are correct that it
Sometimes, lack of funds or time make it impossible for a magic item crafter to create the desired item from scratch. Fortunately, it is possible to enhance or build upon an existing magic item. Only time, gold, and the various prerequisites required of the new ability to be added to the magic item restrict the type of additional powers one can place.The cost to add additional abilities to an item is the same as if the item was not magical, less the value of the original item. Thus, a +1 longsword can be made into a +2 vorpal longsword, with the cost to create it being equal to that of a +2 vorpal sword minus the cost of a +1 longsword.
If the item is one that occupies a specific place on a character's body, the cost of adding any additional ability to that item increases by 50%. For example, if a character adds the power to confer invisibility to her ring of protection 2, the cost of adding this ability is the same as for creating a ring of invisibility multiplied by 1.5.
We all understand what James is saying, but this reasoning is not like the elastic clause of the constitution. You are allowed to upgrade certain items. At this time you cannot stack magic properties on rings and the like.
As I stated before, just because there is a guideline to add magical properties to existing items doesn't mean that it works every time.
Many factors must be considered when determining the price of new magic items. The easiest way to come up with a price is to compare the new item to an item already priced, using that price as a guide. Otherwise, use the guidelines summarized on Table: Estimating Magic Item Gold Piece Values. emphasis mine
Hence the table you are referring to while a pretty good benchmark, is not going to work all the time.
Not all items adhere to these formulas. FIrst and foremost, these few formulas aren't enough to truly gauge the exact differences between items. The price of a magic item may be modified based on its actual worth. The formulas only provide a starting point. The pricing of scrolls assumes that, whenever possible, a wizard or cleric created it. Potions and wands follow the formulas exactly. Staves follow the formulas closely, and other items require at least some judgement calls.
So basically you can see that even when the core book as created, item pricing was more of an art than a science.
|
|
In the future, I would rather see properties that can be added to armor and weapons added in the "+1 or + X gp" fashion, with a specific armor as an example, such as Elven Chanmail and Dwarven Plate. Unfortunately, I have to abide by the rules for PFS as set, and both Collapsible and Lucky properties lay out of reach unless you purchase the specific armors, and negate all other armor upgrade/purchases made previous by selling your original armor for 1/2 price.
Personally, I would rather see the "+" be a separate enhancement from the special abilities.
The SA would not be a "+" equivalent enhancement, but all would be flat gp add ons. That way, you could easily add them to any item without needing to calculate equivalency.
The "+" enhancements would be a separate cost table. So if you want to add a +1 to the Celestial Armor, no problem, pay, Xgp.
The number of "+" on an item could be a limitation (somehow) as to the maximum magic the item could hold.
But this is just my 2cp and would require a revamp of the entire magic section and be a PF issue not PFS.
...The difference between 1 and 2 is that 1 follows set rules of generic magic swords.
2 follows guidlines for creating new items, guidelines that are only there to aid a GM. There is no set way to really determine the proper pricing, as often items can be made under those guidelines that end up in the realm of ridiculous.
The magic item creation guidelines are not rules, they are GM aids. They are not akin to the magic weapon pricing rules.
You are meaning #4 instead of #2 here. In that way I fully support you.
However a ring of invisibility and protection +2 is the example given for such under the section talking about "Adding New Abilities" that also talks about further enchanting a +1 longsword into a +2 vorpal longsword.
Here is the relevant section for you:
As you can see there is a well-defined way of handling the pricing here. Meanwhile if you had meant by #4 example,
Sometimes, lack of funds or time make it impossible for a magic item crafter to create the desired item from scratch. Fortunately, it is possible to enhance or build upon an existing magic item. Only time, gold, and the various prerequisites required of the new ability to be added to the magic item restrict the type of additional powers one can place.The cost to add additional abilities to an item is the same as if the item was not magical, less the value of the original item. Thus, a +1 longsword can be made into a +2 vorpal longsword, with the cost to create it being equal to that of a +2 vorpal sword minus the cost of a +1 longsword.
If the item is one that occupies a specific place on a character's body, the cost of adding any additional ability to that item increases by 50%. For example, if a character adds the power to confer invisibility to her ring of protection 2, the cost of adding this ability is the same as for creating a ring of invisibility multiplied by 1.5.
I think we're back to the same old discussion of how many editions of the Guide can go by before one says ton onself, "well, that forum post still hasn't made it into a printed rules source. I guess someone changed their mind." ?
I doubt that we will agree. Which would be more okay to me if it weren't that we are in a campaign where we are all supposedly running off the same rules set.
I tend to subscribe to the philosophy that if a rule does not exist in a valid rules source, it really isn't a rule, no matter how many people think it is.
I tend to subscribe to the philosophy that if a rule does not exist in a valid rules source, it really isn't a rule, no matter how many people think it is.On that we can agree Fozzy.
And the universe hasn't imploded yet?
|
|
I tend to subscribe to the philosophy that if a rule does not exist in a valid rules source, it really isn't a rule, no matter how many people think it is.
I prefer this as well since I am aware that not everyone surfs the forums. And with new players coming in, unless they search the archives, would be unaware of the ruling.
However, we need to temper that with the fact that we know there are "rules" that currently exist only in the forums. Hopefully, with the advent of the FAQ, many of these rules questions can be answered there so there is an "official" record and can be referenced. Let's also remember that currently, there is no Director of Organized Play. Mark (with Lilith's assistance) is the steward until such person is determined and I'm sure he is doing the best he can.
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
The "upgrade" issue gets muddied by the allowance of items such as a Belt if +2 Str being upgraded into a Belt of +2 Str and +2 Dex (even though such an item exists in Core rules), and upgrading a Ring of Invisibility to a Ring of Protection +2 and Invisibility (which does not). If an armor (such as Banded Mail of Luck, Breastplate of Command, and Folding Plate) or a weapon (i.e. pretty much all of them!) does not specify a material it is made out of, why can't it be purchased as Adamantine, Silver or Mithril by paying the corresponding price? As players, we accept that we can't Craft these items for ourselves: that is the nature of the game in the effort for balance between players. But our GP earnings are fairly the same based on level and checked again against "power creep" by the need for a certain Prestige Award level to purchase items. Why should this extra step be necessary?
Contrary to popular belief, I don't just pop unto these boards to stir controversy... I just ask questions. And sometimes I question why they are answered the way they are. either way, i abide by the rules... until they change.
|
|
The "upgrade" issue gets muddied by the allowance of items such as a Belt if +2 Str being upgraded into a Belt of +2 Str and +2 Dex (even though such an item exists in Core rules), and upgrading a Ring of Invisibility to a Ring of Protection +2 and Invisibility (which does not). If an armor (such as Banded Mail of Luck, Breastplate of Command, and Folding Plate) or a weapon (i.e. pretty much all of them!) does not specify a material it is made out of, why can't it be purchased as Adamantine, Silver or Mithril by paying the corresponding price? As players, we accept that we can't Craft these items for ourselves: that is the nature of the game in the effort for balance between players. But our GP earnings are fairly the same based on level and checked again against "power creep" by the need for a certain Prestige Award level to purchase items. Why should this extra step be necessary?
Contrary to popular belief, I don't just pop unto these boards to stir controversy... I just ask questions. And sometimes I question why they are answered the way they are. either way, i abide by the rules... until they change.
Sorry, are you saying that a multiple enchantment ring is legal?
That would be new to me.|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
It was to me too, until I read this.
Adding New Abilities wrote:
Sometimes, lack of funds or time make it impossible for a magic item crafter to create the desired item from scratch. Fortunately, it is possible to enhance or build upon an existing magic item. Only time, gold, and the various prerequisites required of the new ability to be added to the magic item restrict the type of additional powers one can place.
The cost to add additional abilities to an item is the same as if the item was not magical, less the value of the original item. Thus, a +1 longsword can be made into a +2 vorpal longsword, with the cost to create it being equal to that of a +2 vorpal sword minus the cost of a +1 longsword.
If the item is one that occupies a specific place on a character's body, the cost of adding any additional ability to that item increases by 50%. For example, if a character adds the power to confer invisibility to her ring of protection 2, the cost of adding this ability is the same as for creating a ring of invisibility multiplied by 1.5.
|
|
The "upgrade" issue gets muddied by the allowance of items such as a Belt if +2 Str being upgraded into a Belt of +2 Str and +2 Dex (even though such an item exists in Core rules), and upgrading a Ring of Invisibility to a Ring of Protection +2 and Invisibility (which does not). If an armor (such as Banded Mail of Luck, Breastplate of Command, and Folding Plate) or a weapon (i.e. pretty much all of them!) does not specify a material it is made out of, why can't it be purchased as Adamantine, Silver or Mithril by paying the corresponding price? As players, we accept that we can't Craft these items for ourselves: that is the nature of the game in the effort for balance between players. But our GP earnings are fairly the same based on level and checked again against "power creep" by the need for a certain Prestige Award level to purchase items. Why should this extra step be necessary?
Contrary to popular belief, I don't just pop unto these boards to stir controversy... I just ask questions. And sometimes I question why they are answered the way they are. either way, i abide by the rules... until they change.
I can try and answer this, and I can see why is a bit muddled.
The core rules assume that your run of the mill magic arms and armor are made with standard materials. You can buy items that are made with special material and you can have them enchanted using the standard rules.
So if you want an adamantine +1 holy longsword you can do that provided you follow all the rules.
What you can"t do is make a full plate celestial armor. All of the properties of that item would have to be reconfigured and then price balanced. One of the properties of celestial armor is that it can be hidden under clothes. Having full plate hidden under your clothes is silly.
And that one of the problems with changing named magic items, what to leave out, and what to leave in and what to price the whole thing at. It's a nightmare.
Does this answer the question?
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
I can try and answer this, and I can see why is a bit muddled.
The core rules assume that your run of the mill magic arms and armor are made with standard materials. You can buy items that are made with special material and you can have them enchanted using the standard rules.
So if you want an adamantine +1 holy longsword you can do that provided you follow all the rules.
What you can"t do is make a full plate celestial armor. All of the properties of that item would have to be reconfigured and then price balanced. One of the properties of celestial armor is that it can be hidden under clothes. Having full plate hidden under your clothes is silly.
And that one of the problems with changing named magic items, what to leave out, and what to leave in and what to price the whole thing at. It's a nightmare.
Does this answer the question?
My question isn't about changing the TYPE of an armor or a weapon, just the material used to construct it. Very few are the specific, named armors that do not spell out the materials involved, while weapons are wide open.
I understand that Banded mail of Luck would remain Banded Mail, not Full Plate of Luck.
|
|
I can try and answer this, and I can see why is a bit muddled.
The core rules assume that your run of the mill magic arms and armor are made with standard materials. You can buy items that are made with special material and you can have them enchanted using the standard rules.
So if you want an adamantine +1 holy longsword you can do that provided you follow all the rules.
What you can"t do is make a full plate celestial armor. All of the properties of that item would have to be reconfigured and then price balanced. One of the properties of celestial armor is that it can be hidden under clothes. Having full plate hidden under your clothes is silly.
And that one of the problems with changing named magic items, what to leave out, and what to leave in and what to price the whole thing at. It's a nightmare.
Does this answer the question?
My question isn't about changing the TYPE of an armor or a weapon, just the material used to construct it. Very few are the specific, named armors that do not spell out the materials involved, while weapons are wide open.
I understand that Banded mail of Luck would remain Banded Mail, not Full Plate of Luck.
Special materials add the same level of sophistication to named armors.
|
|
It was to me too, until I read this.
Adding New Abilities wrote:
Sometimes, lack of funds or time make it impossible for a magic item crafter to create the desired item from scratch. Fortunately, it is possible to enhance or build upon an existing magic item. Only time, gold, and the various prerequisites required of the new ability to be added to the magic item restrict the type of additional powers one can place.
The cost to add additional abilities to an item is the same as if the item was not magical, less the value of the original item. Thus, a +1 longsword can be made into a +2 vorpal longsword, with the cost to create it being equal to that of a +2 vorpal sword minus the cost of a +1 longsword.
If the item is one that occupies a specific place on a character's body, the cost of adding any additional ability to that item increases by 50%. For example, if a character adds the power to confer invisibility to her ring of protection 2, the cost of adding this ability is the same as for creating a ring of invisibility multiplied by 1.5.
The second part is in reference to the core rules on upgrading magic items, but is currently not allowed in PFS.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
The "upgrade" issue gets muddied by the allowance of items such as a Belt if +2 Str being upgraded into a Belt of +2 Str and +2 Dex (even though such an item exists in Core rules)......
I am quoting just this part because this allowed only because you are upgrading one legal item into another legal item. Anything else falls under the item creation ban. So, using the other example, until a legal source lists a ring of invisibility and protection +2 as a valid item, then it is not legal to create.
This specific passage was in the 3.0 Guide, but is not in the 4.0 Guide:
Neither the craft feats nor the item creation section of the magic items chapter in the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook are legal for play.
I do not know if this was by mistake or on purpose, but this missing sentence makes things way too ambiguous. Heck, the 2.0 version of the Guide even listed the exact pages that were off-limits to go along with this sentence. And for reference, those are pages 548-553. So until Mark or someone else clarifies this, I would consider any quotes people are using from those pages of the Core Book to be invalid.
The second part is in reference to the core rules on upgrading magic items, but is currently not allowed in PFS.It was to me too, until I read this.
Adding New Abilities wrote:
Sometimes, lack of funds or time make it impossible for a magic item crafter to create the desired item from scratch. Fortunately, it is possible to enhance or build upon an existing magic item. Only time, gold, and the various prerequisites required of the new ability to be added to the magic item restrict the type of additional powers one can place.
The cost to add additional abilities to an item is the same as if the item was not magical, less the value of the original item. Thus, a +1 longsword can be made into a +2 vorpal longsword, with the cost to create it being equal to that of a +2 vorpal sword minus the cost of a +1 longsword.
If the item is one that occupies a specific place on a character's body, the cost of adding any additional ability to that item increases by 50%. For example, if a character adds the power to confer invisibility to her ring of protection 2, the cost of adding this ability is the same as for creating a ring of invisibility multiplied by 1.5.
Here we keep bumping up against the fact that the very same section of the core rules that allows a weapon to be upgraded from +1 to _2 is the same section that allows a ring to be upgraded from a ring of invisibility to a +2 ring of invisibility.
Either the section is valid, or it is not. If it is not, then there is no part of the core rules that support upgrading a weapon or armor to add new abilities. If it is valid, then it also supports upgrading rings.
It seems to me that you are trying to rewrite a rule that you only partly like. You like that armor and weapons can be upgraded. You do not like that rings can also be upgraded.
The "upgrade" issue gets muddied by the allowance of items such as a Belt if +2 Str being upgraded into a Belt of +2 Str and +2 Dex (even though such an item exists in Core rules)......I am quoting just this part because this allowed only because you are upgrading one legal item into another legal item. Anything else falls under the item creation ban. So, using the other example, until a legal source lists a ring of invisibility and protection +2 as a valid item, then it is not legal to create.
This specific passage was in the 3.0 Guide, but is not in the 4.0 Guide:
I do not know if this was by mistake or on purpose, but this missing sentence makes things way too ambiguous. Heck, the 2.0 version of the Guide even listed the exact pages that were off-limits to go along with this sentence. And for reference, those are pages 548-553. So until Mark or someone else clarifies this, I would consider any quotes people are using from those pages of the Core Book to be invalid.
Neither the craft feats nor the item creation section of the magic items chapter in the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook are legal for play.
It is interesting that this text was removed. It's also interesting that you are trying to say that the removed rule is still the rule.
It's also interesting that there is still no actual prohibition on the use of the craft skill to create whatever mundane items one wishes. (in fact, Lantern lodge has a trait that gives a +1 bonus on Craft checks).
At what point does the non-existence of a rule constitute the rule not existing?
At what point does the non-existence of a rule constitute the rule not existing?
When it is specifically stated by the folks in charge that it was an intentional change and not an accidental omission, especially when it is not something that was debated and/or commented on by Mark or Hyrum, or Josh before them, prior to an update to the Guide.
Sometimes the well-meaning efforts at streamlining documents causes items to be lost in the editing process. Just compare the PRPG Core Book to the 3.5 PHB and DMG. I have found places where a sentence or paragraph simply never made the transition, and not because the rule was changed or the section rewritten to be more clear, but rather simply left out for whatever reason.
As an aside, there is still a list of items that Joshua Frost said would be added or updated or changed going from version 3.01 to 3.1 of the Guide. Yet a lot of those changes still have not appeared, as they were probably lost in the shuffle when he left and Hyrum and Mark took over.
|
|
As an aside, there is still a list of items that Joshua Frost said would be added or updated or changed going from version 3.01 to 3.1 of the Guide. Yet a lot of those changes still have not appeared, as they were probably lost in the shuffle when he left and Hyrum and Mark took over.
Where is that list? I'd like to take a look at it. Is there a link to an old post I can follow or some such?
I would have to compile it, but I have noticed some things when I was looking through his past posts while hunting for an answer to something in another thread. Most of the items are in the FAQ thread, though.
|
|
I would have to compile it, but I have noticed some things when I was looking through his past posts while hunting for an answer to something in another thread. Most of the items are in the FAQ thread, though.If you could compile it, I would appreciate it. You don't necessarily have to post it here. You can email it to me at mbrock@georgiapfs.org and I'll get it posted up on the Venture Captain forum to see what still needs to be done and what has been adjudicated in some other way or is already listed in the FAQ.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
At what point does the non-existence of a rule constitute the rule not existing?When it is specifically stated by the folks in charge that it was an intentional change and not an accidental omission, especially when it is not something that was debated and/or commented on by Mark or Hyrum, or Josh before them, prior to an update to the Guide.
Sometimes the well-meaning efforts at streamlining documents causes items to be lost in the editing process. Just compare the PRPG Core Book to the 3.5 PHB and DMG. I have found places where a sentence or paragraph simply never made the transition, and not because the rule was changed or the section rewritten to be more clear, but rather simply left out for whatever reason.
As an aside, there is still a list of items that Joshua Frost said would be added or updated or changed going from version 3.01 to 3.1 of the Guide. Yet a lot of those changes still have not appeared, as they were probably lost in the shuffle when he left and Hyrum and Mark took over.
So the guide is only the guide when Paizo staff goes through point by point to affirm that what they wrote is what they intended?
So a player cannot simply download the guide, and then look at additional resources and the FAQ and know the rules? They have to know what the rules used to be, and possibly still are, and what someone said the rule will be in the future, but didn't bother to put into the guide?
I'm sorry, but that seems to make little sense. Why bother publishing an update to the guide (or why bother to publish a guide at all) if the words on the page don't stand on their own?
And in most cases it would not be a problem, since every update to the Guide, except for the last one or two, was accompanied with an email to everyone who had previously downloaded it, that both informed a new version was out and also listed all the changes from the previous version. Yeah, this does not help any new players who have never read a version of the Guide from before 4.0 and the specific topic that this thread is about would be very confusing to new players. All of us from before 4.0 know that item crafting to make new and/or unique items is not allowed, but the current Guide, because of the missing text, would lead new players to think that only they are not allowed to make unusual items themselves, but can still go and have an NPC crafter make the item for them.
|
|
And as such I conclude that you are wrong here. Obscure and/or random posts that may or may not have occurred in the past are not rules for PFS.
This is why I put rules in quotes to indicate they were rules without being rules. There is no question what the RAI is. Josh was clear about this issue in the forums and neither Hyrum nor Mark has indicated otherwise.
Sure there is a rule now, as you listed, that indicates rules not in the Guide are not rules, but lets not ignore the big pink elephant. They have clarified a question in the forums and we expect it will be added to the either the Guide or the FAQ.
To completely dismiss the knowledge is a disservice to the society and will likely cause issues for players in the near future if they choose to ignore it.
|
|
I'd argue that its defined, but its a stretch to say it's well defined. This information that you have provided from the magic crafting rules front he Core. In reality, its a guide. Just because you can use this table and its rules doesn't mean that the price that you come up with at the end is right. It could be right, or it could be too high or too low.
As I said before, we really need to look at the way things can be "upgraded."
Then we would argue. This part of the core rules is well-defined and it is NOT the table of GUIDELINES being used here.
It is actually the section prior to it.
These are different things. In my list of examples they even have different numbers to distinguish them to avoid that confusion.
A ring that confers invisibility and gives protection +2 is a well-defined magic item under the core rules. It needs no more DM adjudication for existence or pricing as further enchanting a +1 longsword to a +2 holy longsword needs DM adjudication or pricing.
Now PFS doesn't use all of the core rules here, only some.
But there is a difference here that you don't seem to be accepting or understanding.
My example 4 was using the table of DM guidelines for making new magic items.
Meanwhile my example 2 falls under the same core rules as further enchanting a +1 longsword into a +2 holy longsword. It does not use the aforementioned table and is not a suggested or guideline price.
-James
I'm sorry James, but the information I provided explicitly explained that it was in fact for estimated costs. Hence, the information is a guideline.
We can disagree, but the table is called "Table: Estimating Magic Item Gold Piece Values".
|
|
At what point does the non-existence of a rule constitute the rule not existing?When it is specifically stated by the folks in charge that it was an intentional change and not an accidental omission, especially when it is not something that was debated and/or commented on by Mark or Hyrum, or Josh before them, prior to an update to the Guide.
Sometimes the well-meaning efforts at streamlining documents causes items to be lost in the editing process. Just compare the PRPG Core Book to the 3.5 PHB and DMG. I have found places where a sentence or paragraph simply never made the transition, and not because the rule was changed or the section rewritten to be more clear, but rather simply left out for whatever reason.
As an aside, there is still a list of items that Joshua Frost said would be added or updated or changed going from version 3.01 to 3.1 of the Guide. Yet a lot of those changes still have not appeared, as they were probably lost in the shuffle when he left and Hyrum and Mark took over.
So the guide is only the guide when Paizo staff goes through point by point to affirm that what they wrote is what they intended?
So a player cannot simply download the guide, and then look at additional resources and the FAQ and know the rules? They have to know what the rules used to be, and possibly still are, and what someone said the rule will be in the future, but didn't bother to put into the guide?
I'm sorry, but that seems to make little sense. Why bother publishing an update to the guide (or why bother to publish a guide at all) if the words on the page don't stand on their own?
Could the guide be more precise, yes. Is there a void in the Campaign Manger slot, yes. These are also the reason that the Venture Captains exist.
By and large the rules do stand on their own and we all know that, otherwise people wouldn't play it.
Let's get back to the topic about the rule, and stop attacking the rules philosophy.
At what point does the non-existence of a rule constitute the rule not existing?When it is specifically stated by the folks in charge that it was an intentional change and not an accidental omission, especially when it is not something that was debated and/or commented on by Mark or Hyrum, or Josh before them, prior to an update to the Guide.
Sometimes the well-meaning efforts at streamlining documents causes items to be lost in the editing process. Just compare the PRPG Core Book to the 3.5 PHB and DMG. I have found places where a sentence or paragraph simply never made the transition, and not because the rule was changed or the section rewritten to be more clear, but rather simply left out for whatever reason.
As an aside, there is still a list of items that Joshua Frost said would be added or updated or changed going from version 3.01 to 3.1 of the Guide. Yet a lot of those changes still have not appeared, as they were probably lost in the shuffle when he left and Hyrum and Mark took over.
So the guide is only the guide when Paizo staff goes through point by point to affirm that what they wrote is what they intended?
So a player cannot simply download the guide, and then look at additional resources and the FAQ and know the rules? They have to know what the rules used to be, and possibly still are, and what someone said the rule will be in the future, but didn't bother to put into the guide?
I'm sorry, but that seems to make little sense. Why bother publishing an update to the guide (or why bother to publish a guide at all) if the words on the page don't stand on their own?
Could the guide be more precise, yes. Is there a void in the Campaign Manger slot, yes. These are also the reason that the Venture Captains exist.
By and large the rules do stand on their own and we all know that, otherwise people wouldn't play it.
Let's get back to the topic about the rule, and stop...
Struggling not to react to your condescending tone in kind...
Rules are. Or they are not. They are not in some quantum probability state.
Discussing a rule that does not exist as if it did is a pointless exercise.
If you (or can support your position with an actual rule, I will accede to it. If you cannot, then I will not. Given that you do not actually seem to have any more insight into why the rule does not appear in the text, you appear to me to be simply trying to bully those on the other side of the debate.
Regional Coordinator Volunteer Duties and Expectations
1. Organize a minimum of two Pathfinder Society Organized Play convention or game store appearances per month in your local or regional area of responsibility.
2. Attend PaizoCon or Gen Con and work for Paizo at one (or both) of those conventions annually. Non-USA regional coordinators will be expected to attend large local conventions to be named later.
3. Maintain and update monthly a full report of local game stores including contact information, manager's name, what Paizo products they carry, and whether or not they're running Pathfinder Society Organized Play events (with or without your assistance).
4. Build a positive rapport with all local game store managers and employees.
5. Provide the campaign coordinator with frequent feedback from game stores, volunteers, and players in your local area or region of responsibility.
6. Be a Paizo Publishing product expert. Familiarize yourself with all of our product lines and be comfortable talking about all of them.
7. Game Master a minimum of one Pathfinder Society Organized Play session per month.
8. Participate daily on the Pathfinder Society Organized Play messageboards and on the private Regional Coordinator messageboard.
9. Build and maintain monthly an email list of local volunteers.
10. To the best of your ability, ensure that all Pathfinder Society Organized Play sessions run in your local area or region of responsibility are reported and reported accurately.
11. Be the go-to contact for your local area or region of responsibility; assist local game days, game clubs, conventions, or any other such group wanting a Pathfinder Society Organized Play presence at their event.
12. Ensure that all Pathfinder Society Organized Play events in your local area or region of responsibility are entered into the event-finder at paizo.com/pathfindersociety.
Rewards for Pathfinder Society Organized Play Regional Coordinators
1. Free attendance at PaizoCon or Gen Con (or both), including free badges, a portion of a hotel room, booth vouchers, and possible product rewards. In order to receive the free attendance, the regional coordinator must arrange his or her own travel to and from show, must provide for his or her own food, and must volunteer for a minimum of eight slots at Gen Con and a minimum of four slots at PaizoCon.
2. Pathfinder Society Organized Play Regional Coordinator dinner at PaizoCon or Gen Con (or both).
3. Free PDFs of every new PDF product Paizo Publishing releases added to your My Downloads section on paizo.com.
4. Annual exclusive special scenario available to regional coordinators and 5-star GMs only for one year.
5. Messageboard tag in the Pathfinder Society messageboards: Pathfinder Society Regional Coordinator. (Note: this tag will trump all other tags while posting on the Pathfinder Society messageboards.)
6. Special exclusive events at PaizoCon and Gen Con.
I see nothing in your list of duties and responsibilities that states that you are any more of a rules source than any other participant on the boards.
In fact, I see nothing in your list of duties or benefits that includes condescension, bullying, or general asshattery.
Or has this document been updated since?