Maybe I'm confused about what is being discussed here, but Item Creation feats are not allowed for players as per page 5 of the Guide.
We are not talking about item creation feats. We are talking about walking over to Ye Newe Magik Shoppe and having a weapon, armor, ring, or wondrous item upgraded by the Wizard-Technician on staff.
The rules that allow a Sword to be upgraded from +1 to +1 Flaming to +1 Flaming Frost also allow Rings, Amulets, Headbands and the like to be upgraded.
Some (appear to me) to be arguing that while Swords may be upgraded, wondrous items may not, as they somehow are carved out of the same section of rules by some (dare I say magical?) means unknown to anyone actually reading the rules.
|
Some (appear to me) to be arguing that while Swords may be upgraded, wondrous items may not, as they somehow are carved out of the same section of rules by some (dare I say magical?) means unknown to anyone actually reading the rules.
We can agree that a +1 longsword and a +1 flaming longsword are allowed and how you get from a to b mechanically? It exists in the rule book.
We appear to disagree that a Ring of Invisibility can be combined with a Ring of Protection +1 to create a Ring of Invisible Protection? It does not exist in the rule book as an item unto itself, thus you cannot get to it in PFS.
By extension we can agree that a Belt of giant strength can be upgraded to a Belt of physical might. But not a belt of giant invisibility
Some (appear to me) to be arguing that while Swords may be upgraded, wondrous items may not, as they somehow are carved out of the same section of rules by some (dare I say magical?) means unknown to anyone actually reading the rules.We can agree that a +1 longsword and a +1 flaming longsword are allowed and how you get from a to b mechanically? It exists in the rule book.
We appear to disagree that a Ring of Invisibility can be combined with a Ring of Protection +1 to create a Ring of Invisible Protection? It does not exist in the rule book as an item unto itself, thus you cannot get to it in PFS.
Rules text?
There is none.
Any wizard of sufficient level and an arcane bonded ring can create one. It has a clearly defined price. Heck, it's even used in an example in the exact same section that tells us how to upgrade our frikkin sword:
Adding New Abilities
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.
Again. If the sword can be upgraded, so too can the ring.
Ignoring the rules is different than knowing the rules.
|
|
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".
Okay Michael, you are missing the fact that I'm not using this table.
Now, again, my example #4 of an item that gives a circumstance bonus (or whatever) to AC would be something that a DM would need to decide whether or not to allow and if they did so then this table of guidelines would be an aid for them deciding how to price it.
There we agree.
However we do not use this table to price a wand of cure light wounds, do we? It appears on that table, yet the rules for it are elsewhere than this table of guidelines.
Does that make sense?
There are core rules for handling the further enchanting of a +1 longsword to a +2 holy longsword and in the same place are also rules for adding the effects of a ring of invisibility to a ring of protection +2.
And neither of these rules requires us to use the table of guidelines.
They are two separate things.
I've said this several times, and I'm thinking that you are perhaps just skimming these posts and not really reading them for comprehension. I've also quoted the location in the rules and it does not require the table you are talking about.
I understand the table you're talking about and in fact its a pet peeve of mine that people think that these are rules rather than guidelines.
Again I'm not doing this or confusing it. However I do believe that you have confused the two things here.
So lastly, I'm not talking about using that table when it comes to pricing a ring of invisibility and protection +2, rather I'm talking about other rules that I quoted that detail how that is handled.
-James
James, you gave an example and I addressed it, your now just changing the argument. This is why people don't want to address you.
|
|
Rules text?
There is none.
Every player who completes a scenario receives a set amount of gold for the scenario that she may then spend to acquire items (either from her collected Chronicle sheets, from the Core Rulebook, or from an approved Additional Resource).
Show me a Belt of giant invisibility and you can buy it.
Also, generally, quote edit people...quote edit. Please.
|
|
Some (appear to me) to be arguing that while Swords may be upgraded, wondrous items may not, as they somehow are carved out of the same section of rules by some (dare I say magical?) means unknown to anyone actually reading the rules.We can agree that a +1 longsword and a +1 flaming longsword are allowed and how you get from a to b mechanically? It exists in the rule book.
We appear to disagree that a Ring of Invisibility can be combined with a Ring of Protection +1 to create a Ring of Invisible Protection? It does not exist in the rule book as an item unto itself, thus you cannot get to it in PFS.
By extension we can agree that a Belt of giant strength can be upgraded to a Belt of physical might. But not a belt of giant invisibility
No your right, Mark.
Rules text?
There is none.
Every player who completes a scenario receives a set amount of gold for the scenario that she may then spend to acquire items (either from her collected Chronicle sheets, from the Core Rulebook, or from an approved Additional Resource).Show me a Belt of giant invisibility and you can buy it.
Also, generally, quote edit people...quote edit. Please.
To which I could counter:
Show me a +1 Longsword of Flaming and Human Bane and you can buy it.
|
|
To which I could counter:
Show me a +1 Longsword of Flaming and Human Bane and you can buy it.
Exactly. I personally am happy to support this conclusion. However, we both know it's not the intent (and don't even think about playing the 'we don't know the intent' card). When I have more time for Rules Lawyer-foo I'll find the particular rub which makes one legal and the other not, in the mean time any +1 item you want (always available) and any non-standard item found on a Chronicle is it! *I wish*
|
|
When I have more time for Rules Lawyer-foo I'll find the particular rub which makes one legal and the other not
For now I'll go with:
For ease of play in Pathfinder Society, a masterwork item can always be upgraded to a +1 item without paying for the masterwork cost again. Instead, you pay the difference between the cost of the +1 item and that of the masterwork item. This rule also applies to upgrading from a +1 item to a +2 item and so on—you never have to repay the original cost or sell your current item for half to upgrade to the next step. Note that this only applies to items of the same kind—you can’t, for example, turn your masterwork rapier into a +1 greatsword.
When I have more time for Rules Lawyer-foo I'll find the particular rub which makes one legal and the other notFor now I'll go with:
For ease of play in Pathfinder Society, a masterwork item can always be upgraded to a +1 item without paying for the masterwork cost again. Instead, you pay the difference between the cost of the +1 item and that of the masterwork item. This rule also applies to upgrading from a +1 item to a +2 item and so on—you never have to repay the original cost or sell your current item for half to upgrade to the next step. Note that this only applies to items of the same kind—you can’t, for example, turn your masterwork rapier into a +1 greatsword.
FTFY
This does not support your argument that one is allowed, but the other is not.
They are both allowed per the exact same section of Core Rules. Either both are allowed, or neither is.
Just a note: I have not noticed any condescending tone in any of Michael's posts, nor Mark's.You mean like
This is why people don't want to address you.
?
|
|
Just a note: I have not noticed any condescending tone in any of Michael's posts, nor Mark's.You mean likeThis is why people don't want to address you.?
This is not condescending. I have seen a pattern of negative behavior, and I have commented on it. I have noticed that you have returned to that same pattern as well.
You don't seem to be able to consider that the Venture Captains are here for assisting participants of PFS, and not here for abuse.
Just a note: I have not noticed any condescending tone in any of Michael's posts, nor Mark's.You mean likeThis is why people don't want to address you.?This is not condescending. I have seen a pattern of negative behavior, and I have commented on it. I have noticed that you have returned to that same pattern as well.
You don't seem to be able to consider that the Venture Captains are here for assisting participants of PFS, and not here for abuse.
Then stop providing abuse.
People who are acting condescending often rationalize it by claiming that they are simply commenting on patterns of negative behavior.
"Really young man, I'm simply trying to help you..."
When I am condescending, I simply own up to it.
|
|
FTFY
This does not support your argument that one is allowed, but the other is not.
They are both allowed per the exact same section of Core Rules. Either both are allowed, or neither is.
It does to me. It specifically deals with allowing upgrades to happen without the sell/buy. Since item creation is not allowed, creating something which is not in a Core Assumption, Additional Resource or Chronicle isn't going to happen.
Having already been elevated to the end all, be all of rules adjudication and winner of the internets I'm sure you will wait with baited breath while I look for time to dig into this further and render my final judgment :)
|
|
Just a note: I have not noticed any condescending tone in any of Michael's posts, nor Mark's.You mean likeThis is why people don't want to address you.?This is not condescending. I have seen a pattern of negative behavior, and I have commented on it. I have noticed that you have returned to that same pattern as well.
You don't seem to be able to consider that the Venture Captains are here for assisting participants of PFS, and not here for abuse.
Then stop providing abuse.
People who are acting condescending often rationalize it by claiming that they are simply commenting on patterns of negative behavior.
"Really young man, I'm simply trying to help you..."
When I am condescending, I simply own up to it.
I guess that your trying to get my goat Fozzy. I really can't seem to understand what you think you are trying to get across with your last post.
Just a note: I have not noticed any condescending tone in any of Michael's posts, nor Mark's.You mean likeThis is why people don't want to address you.?This is not condescending. I have seen a pattern of negative behavior, and I have commented on it. I have noticed that you have returned to that same pattern as well.
You don't seem to be able to consider that the Venture Captains are here for assisting participants of PFS, and not here for abuse.
Then stop providing abuse.
People who are acting condescending often rationalize it by claiming that they are simply commenting on patterns of negative behavior.
"Really young man, I'm simply trying to help you..."
When I am condescending, I simply own up to it.
I guess that your trying to get my goat Fozzy. I really can't seem to understand what you think you are trying to get across with your last post.
I'll offer an olive branch:
Let's put this down to a "personality conflict", and both dial it back a bit (Neil Shackleton's sage advice to a couple of others in another thread).
Let's put this down to a "personality conflict", and both dial it back a bit (Neil Shackleton's sage advice to a couple of others in another thread).Also, can you both agree to trim your quotes? :)
Sure. Only because it Jorge Luis Borges birthday.
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
Sorry to have caused such a debate. I have tagged the original question for a FAQ in hopes that Mark (who is currently in charge) might comment and clarify. I don't see the need for the redundancy on cost when so many PFS rules already cover the balancing point of items like the armor I asked about in the first place. Please, let's all be civil; remember, a Venture Captain is a volunteer postion... let's not drive them away with verbal abuse!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Ok kids, you can breathe now. I'm ready to render my expert adjudication.
In all seriousness, I have looked over the text to the best of my ability. It seems that Enevhar Aldarion already hit on the crux of the matter here. It's a typo.
In looking into this, I actually find that non-linear Wondrous Item Upgrades being allowed is kind of a mistake to me. As James noted, PFS makes it's own rules. How many and what kind of rules should be made outside of the Core is open to a lot of opinion, but is sort of a fundamental assumption of an Organized Play environment.
A Belt of giant strength +2 can be upgraded to a +4 or +6 version, yes. It's an upgrade, not unlike a magic weapon. There are very clear rules about cost, it's easy to subtract the cost of what you've already bought from what you are buying and most importantly (for GM peace of mind) it's an entry in the book. A Belt of giant strength +2 to a Belt of physical perfection +2 is a bit of a stretch to me, however it does follow the cost guidelines for add 1.5 the cost of the item and the math works out in the end, but most importantly (for GM peace of mind) it's still an entry in the book. Using a smidge of text in the Guide to cover Wondrous Items upgrades is also quite a stretch to me. The text is clearly talking about weapon upgrades but clever use of 'and so on' opens it up pretty widely.
A Ring of protection +2, invisibility however is not an entry in the book. Pricing it might be clear-ish: 1.5x the cost of the additional item, however...doing it one way cost 38K and doing it another costs 32K. Dislike. Disapprove. Don't come to my table with this. I will hate you, mainly because you've caused me extra work now.
The prior intent of the Guide not to allow this. The tables for figuring out the cost of a +1 flaming longsword were legal, the text for using 1.5x the cost was not. It is clear to me this is an editorial oversight and not some fundamental change in campaign direction. Otherwise, you'd have a big button on the front cover of the guide that exclaimed Now with more magic items!
Take it for what it's worth, I've been wrong before. I will be wrong again in the future.
Ok kids, you can breathe now. I'm ready to render my expert adjudication.
In all seriousness, I have looked over the text to the best of my ability. It seems that Enevhar Aldarion already hit on the crux of the matter here. It's a typo.
In looking into this, I actually find that non-linear Wondrous Item Upgrades being allowed is kind of a mistake to me. As James noted, PFS makes it's own rules. How many and what kind of rules should be made outside of the Core is open to a lot of opinion, but is sort of a fundamental assumption of an Organized Play environment.
A Belt of giant strength +2 can be upgraded to a +4 or +6 version, yes. It's an upgrade, not unlike a magic weapon. There are very clear rules about cost, it's easy to subtract the cost of what you've already bought from what you are buying and most importantly (for GM peace of mind) it's an entry in the book. A Belt of giant strength +2 to a Belt of physical perfection +2 is a bit of a stretch to me, however it does follow the cost guidelines for add 1.5 the cost of the item and the math works out in the end, but most importantly (for GM peace of mind) it's still an entry in the book. Using a smidge of text in the Guide to cover Wondrous Items upgrades is also quite a stretch to me. The text is clearly talking about weapon upgrades but clever use of 'and so on' opens it up pretty widely.
A Ring of protection +2, invisibility however is not an entry in the book. Pricing it might be clear-ish: 1.5x the cost of the additional item, however...doing it one way cost 38K and doing it another costs 32K. Dislike. Disapprove. Don't come to my table with this. I will hate you, mainly because you've caused me extra work now.
The prior intent of the Guide not to allow this. The tables for figuring out the cost of a +1 flaming longsword were legal, the text for...
Ya. Not so much.
A Ring of Protection +2, Invisibility is specifically referenced in Core Rules. And yes, according to that specific reference, the order in which you add the abilities will change the cost. You can dislike and disapprove of rules all you like. That does not invalidate your rule.
Me coming to a table with an item you (or any GM) don't/(doesn't) like doesn't bother me. If the matter comes up during a game, I'll show you the rules that allow the item. If you choose to ignore rules in favor of unwritten rules, well, then you (or such a GM) probably don't know the rules well enough to run a game, and to avoid conflict, I'll simply leave the table. Yes, you can run your game how you want. I will never dispute a GM's right to do that. I will maintain a player's right to point out when a GM deviates from the rules and enters house-rule territory.
BTW, you and others keep saying that Item Creation does not exist, but people making that claim consistently ignore Arcane Bond, in which the Wizard may upgrade his bonded item exactly as if he had those feats which you claim do not exist.
You don't seem to be able to consider that the Venture Captains are here for assisting participants of PFS, and not here for abuse.This is correct, only I am allowed to abuse Venture-Captains...
Dragnmoon:
My apologies if I appear to be stepping into your turf. Hopefully I won't be expecting a visit from Vinnie and Moe to break my knees "Nice and friendly, like."?
"Hey!, dis is a nice message board. It'd be a shame if someting were ta happen ta it."
|
|
Ya. Not so much.
This reply doesn't help me understand at all your point of view. Except that apparently you reserve the right to walk, as though anyone needs to be reminded of it? It's inflammatory and not required.
The text you are talking about is missing from this version of the guide and (looking into my crystal ball) I suspect will find it's way back in to the 4.01 version.
(not so)Interesting aside (removed)
It's been flagged, it's time to move.
Interesting aside, the arcane bond exception is missing as well from the Guide. So I guess that means you cannot upgrade them as the feats required to do so are expressly banned in the guide.It's been flagged, it's time to move on kids.
The actual text in 4.0 is:
Characters select feats according to the guidelines in the
Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook. Certain Core Rulebook feats
are not available to Pathfinder Society characters. These
include: Brew Potion, Craft Magic Arms and Armor, Craft
Rod, Craft Staff, Craft Wand, Craft Wondrous Item, Forge
Ring, Leadership, and Scribe Scroll.
Which means that characters may not select the feat "Craft Ring".
Arcane bond does not "require" (your word) a character have the feat.
A wizard can add additional magic abilities to his bonded object as if he has the required item creation feats and if he meets the level prerequisites of the feat.
Since there is no text prohibiting the creation of magic items or blocking out the magic item creation sections of Core Rules, the wizard does not need an exception in order to use his class feature.
So. Wizards are safe.
I agreed to step my tone back a bit, and I am striving to do so. It would be appreciated if you might put forth similar effort. (ie "it's time to move on kids"). Discussion of the rules is not an activity that must meet with your approval to continue. You are welcome to contribute, or not. Positive contributions to a discussion are always welcome. Dismissive "time to move on" comments seem slightly off-putting (to me, at least).
Kindest regards.
|
|
A wizard can add additional magic abilities to his bonded object as if he has the required item creation feats and if he meets the level prerequisites of the feat.Since there is no text prohibiting the creation of magic items or blocking out the magic item creation sections of Core Rules, the wizard does not need an exception in order to use his class feature.
So. Wizards are safe.
Ah yes, missed that word as.
Take it for what it's worth, I've been wrong before. I will be wrong again in the future.
A wizard can add additional magic abilities to his bonded object as if he has the required item creation feats and if he meets the level prerequisites of the feat.Since there is no text prohibiting the creation of magic items or blocking out the magic item creation sections of Core Rules, the wizard does not need an exception in order to use his class feature.
So. Wizards are safe.
Ah yes, missed that word as.
Take it for what it's worth, I've been wrong before. I will be wrong again in the future.
As have I.
FWIW, if I recall correctly, the first time someone pointed out that text to Josh, he similarly admitted to missing the word "as", and read it simply as "if". (Not using as a rules reference, but as an anecdote.)
Have a blessed day.
Arcane bond does not "require" (your word) a character have the feat.A wizard can add additional magic abilities to his bonded object as if he has the required item creation feats and if he meets the level prerequisites of the feat.Since there is no text prohibiting the creation of magic items or blocking out the magic item creation sections of Core Rules, the wizard does not need an exception in order to use his class feature.
So. Wizards are safe.
Yep, and every time this one comes up, it has been confirmed by those in charge that it works exactly as it is in the Core Book and does not need a mention in the Guide because of that.
Yep, and every time this one comes up, it has been confirmed by those in charge that it works exactly as it is in the Core Book and does not need a mention in the Guide because of that.
Arcane bond does not "require" (your word) a character have the feat.A wizard can add additional magic abilities to his bonded object as if he has the required item creation feats and if he meets the level prerequisites of the feat.Since there is no text prohibiting the creation of magic items or blocking out the magic item creation sections of Core Rules, the wizard does not need an exception in order to use his class feature.
So. Wizards are safe.
I glad we agree then, that Item Creation is not banned in PFS, merely restricted to a few small corners of the play area.
Cheers!