Masterwork Transformation legal for PFS play?


Pathfinder Society

51 to 89 of 89 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
The Exchange

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
K Neil Shackleton wrote:

Mark clarified instantaneous spells here.

Paraphrasing, a spell which removes a condition (including damage) does not revert to reinstating the condition. A spell which creates or enchants or transmutes (etc) will expire at the end of a scenario.

So because masterwork transformation actually changes the weapon into something different, it expires. Make whole, which removes the broken condition, would not.

He may have attempted to clarify instantaneous spells, but it still leaves a number of things vague and unclear, so it fails. Also, it hasn't entered into the FAQ, so its not campaign legal as yet.

scenario 1: hand your dagger off to an npc, pay the npc spellcasting services cost + material components, then pay the 2000gp to upgrade to a magical weapon. it can't revert back to a non-masterwork weapon. all services have been done by an NPC as normal.

scenario 2: the instantaneous spell restriction is stupid. and negatively effects pcs with healing, removing conditions, or conditions that are enacted upon them. its overly broad.

some players were given a "pass" to get to keep their masterwork weapons because of rules errata concerning heirloom weapons. others should be allowed to use simple instantaneous spells. yes i can understand having to cast contingency upon yourself at the start of a scenario, i can understand having to re-cast ironwood and reshape wooden armor if that's what you use. but masterwork transformation is cast, and its gone. if you only allow spells that remove an existing condition, or do not create something from nothing, more loopholes will emerge.

And masterwork transformation does not create something from nothing a-la fabricate, its equivalent exchange: 300gp for a masterwork weapon property.


if you're going to make a spell legal for play. It should be legal in all instances. Since masterwork transformation is on the list of allowable resources it should stand that it can be used by players, and not have them have to re-pay the cost for the spell each scenario.


Chris Mortika wrote:

I'm sorry, Michael; I don't understand.

The PFS OP rules explain that --as a special frule of organized play --the duration of spells cast by Player Characters always end between scenarios.

Quote:
Any spell cast by a PC during the course of a scenario that is still active at the end of a scenario ends when the scenario does. ... This includes spells with an instantaneous or permanent duration, such as continual flame, create undead or fabricate.

1) Already, there's a problem, because when we talk about instantaeneous spells like fireball and animate dead, the spell has already ended. So there's a gentlemen's understanding that this includes spell effects, not just spells. So not only is it the case that permanent spells like continual flames peter out, but the effects of instantaneous spells also end. That's not how the guide reads, but that's the interpretation we use.

2a) But not all spells with instantaneous durations. Cure serous wounds has an immediate duration, but we don't imagine that characters sudenly re-take damage. Make whole has an immediate duration, but we don't presume that your restored weapon is broken at the beginning of the next adventure. Raise dead. Etc.

2b) A few people have claimed that the actual, intended meaning here is that the effects of spells that PCs cast, that have a permanent or instantaneous duration, end, unless they remove a condition. So remove disease removes a condition, so it's permanent, but the effects of contagion would go away at the end of the scenario, because it doesn't remove a condition. Make whole removes the "broken" condition, so it's permanent, but masterwork transformation doesn't remove a condition, so its effects would fade away at the completion of a scenario.

2c) But cure spells don't remove a condition, so we need another exception: ...or unless they heal damage. Spels like stone to flesh don't remove a...

Leaving your quote intact (not trimming)...

There's another case here that hasn't been mentioned in the thread yet.

4) Non-spell effects also seem to end at end of scenario. Specific example, the feat: Command Undead. I've yet to see a DM that will allow the commanded undead to remain under the necromancers control past the end of the scenario, even though there is no spell, or spell-like ability in effect. (Channel Energy is a (Su) Supernatural ability).

I will add a slight correction before someone else points out - that Stone to Flesh could be said to remove the Petrified condition.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

also there is precident/exception already for PCs to create / craft in the game: poisons.

so a master crafting alchemist / poisoner rogue can create 1000gp poisons to use, but a spellcaster can't spend 300gp to make a weapon masterwork themselves rather than buy a masterwork weapon in a market somewhere.


Chris Mortika wrote:

I'm sorry, Michael; I don't understand.

The PFS OP rules explain that --as a special frule of organized play --the duration of spells cast by Player Characters always end between scenarios.

Quote:
Any spell cast by a PC during the course of a scenario that is still active at the end of a scenario ends when the scenario does. ... This includes spells with an instantaneous or permanent duration, such as continual flame, create undead or fabricate.

1) Already, there's a problem, because when we talk about instantaeneous spells like fireball and animate dead, the spell has already ended. So there's a gentlemen's understanding that this includes spell effects, not just spells. So not only is it the case that permanent spells like continual flames peter out, but the effects of instantaneous spells also end. That's not how the guide reads, but that's the interpretation we use.

2a) But not all spells with instantaneous durations. Cure serous wounds has an immediate duration, but we don't imagine that characters sudenly re-take damage. Make whole has an immediate duration, but we don't presume that your restored weapon is broken at the beginning of the next adventure. Raise dead. Etc.

2b) A few people have claimed that the actual, intended meaning here is that the effects of spells that PCs cast, that have a permanent or instantaneous duration, end, unless they remove a condition. So remove disease removes a condition, so it's permanent, but the effects of contagion would go away at the end of the scenario, because it doesn't remove a condition. Make whole removes the "broken" condition, so it's permanent, but masterwork transformation doesn't remove a condition, so its effects would fade away at the completion of a scenario.

2c) But cure spells don't remove a condition, so we need another exception: ...or unless they heal damage. Spels like stone to flesh don't remove a condition, either. Do their effects continue permanently? Do we need another exception?

Well, okay, so the work around is for a Pathfinder to get an NPC to cast the spell.

Quote:

Generally speaking, you can pay to have spells cast on you at any time during the scenario so long as you’re in a settlement or have access to a church, temple, shrine, or wandering mystic. Page 163 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook covers the rules for purchasing spellcasting services and the associated costs are listed in the “Spellcasting and Services” table on page 159...Spells that are 7th level or higher are not available from spellcasting services.

Spells like stone to flesh and masterwork transformation fall into this category of spells that PCs can't use successfully, but we can get NPCs to cast.

3) But you are now asserting a new rule, that NPCs will never cast instantaneous or permanent spells for Pathfinders. That's wholly new, and doesn't seem to make sense.

Look, there's something going on with some long-lasting spells. Somebody doesn't like something about them. But making a rule, and then kludging it, and then kludging the kludges, and on and on: it's bad game design.

Speaking for myself as a table-GM, I have no idea what the campaign leaders want.

Sean says:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Again, this is one of the increasingly common board discussions where you know how something should work, and you're deliberately acting like you don't know that just so you can prove a point that the rules are "unclear," in that they aren't thousands of pages long that explain every possible permutation of possibility.

You understand how the rules should work.

I don't talk to you like you don't understand how the rules should work.

Why are you presenting an argument as if you don't understand how the rules should work?

Grand Lodge

I'm going to have to refer you to the rules forums for this if you don't understand how healing works Chris.

And you are also putting words in my mouth. I said that None of the NPCs cast prohibited spells in scenarios. Cure spells aren"t prohibited.

And I also know that you understand that. I can understand that prople want Masterwork Transformation made legal. I can respect that.

And I know that I'm going to get blaster for this, but come on Chris, you know Pathfinder rules better than this. It's not like Cure spells have had a lot of changes since 3.0.

Sorry that might sound condescending, but there has to be a better way of making a persuasive argument than misinterpreting the main rule set.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Michael Griffin-Wade wrote:

I'm going to have to refer you to the rules forums for this if you don't understand how healing works Chris.

And you are also putting words in my mouth. I said that None of the NPCs cast prohibited spells in scenarios. Cure spells aren"t prohibited.

And I also know that you understand that. I can understand that prople want Masterwork Transformation made legal. I can respect that.

And I know that I'm going to get blaster for this, but come on Chris, you know Pathfinder rules better than this. It's not like Cure spells have had a lot of changes since 3.0.

Sorry that might sound condescending, but there has to be a better way of making a persuasive argument than misinterpreting the main rule set.

I don't believe that Chris is misrepresenting the main rule set. He is making an accurate representation of the HOUSE RULES that Pathfinder Society uses. The House Rules are inconsistent, and inconsistently applied.

It would be my hope that by pointing out these inconsistencies, future revisions of the rules might be better written, and the game itself would improve.

Personally, I don't care whether MT is made legal or not. The fact that it isn't makes any argument about it moot. The tangential argument, that the house rule proclaiming that instant effect are reversed at end-of-scenario is far more important to me, as it's a gaping hole in the rule set that should be corrected in future revisions of the rules.

Sovereign Court

Michael Griffin-Wade wrote:

I'm going to have to refer you to the rules forums for this if you don't understand how healing works Chris.

And you are also putting words in my mouth. I said that None of the NPCs cast prohibited spells in scenarios. Cure spells aren"t prohibited.

And I also know that you understand that. I can understand that prople want Masterwork Transformation made legal. I can respect that.

And I know that I'm going to get blaster for this, but come on Chris, you know Pathfinder rules better than this. It's not like Cure spells have had a lot of changes since 3.0.

Sorry that might sound condescending, but there has to be a better way of making a persuasive argument than misinterpreting the main rule set.

From the resources page, Ultimate Magic:

Quote:


Spells: all spells are legal for play except those which grant a spellblight (such as curse of magic negation or steal voice);

Since it is explicitly allowed, what makes Masterwork Transformation a prohibited spell, that NPCs won't cast?

Grand Lodge

So what your asking Fozzy is to recreate the RPG book. Come on now guys you'r just being condescending now.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Eastern Eurasia-Africa

I actually think that the spells cast by NPCs also end.

Case of RAI vs RAW.

Grand Lodge

Zape wrote:


Since it is explicitly allowed, what makes Masterwork Transformation a prohibited spell, that NPCs won't cast?

Where do you see it being allowed?

Grand Lodge Venture-Agent, Texas—Mansfield aka sieylianna

I think the simplest fix is just to expand the list of prohibited spells. If you can't cast a spell in a PFS module, then there are no arguments over what happens when the module ends. This is already done for Awaken and other spells, I don't understand why there is reluctance to handle new problem spells in the same way.

Sovereign Court

Michael Griffin-Wade wrote:
Zape wrote:


Since it is explicitly allowed, what makes Masterwork Transformation a prohibited spell, that NPCs won't cast?
Where do you see it being allowed?

paizo.com/pathfindersociety/resources

Adds all spells from Ultimate Magic, as I mentioned above. The organized play guide essentially states that "generally speaking" in a large enough settlement spellcasting services may be purchased as per the rules on pages 163 and 159 of the core rulebook.

I'm not trying to be difficult, and RAI vs RAW is the best argument I've seen so far (NPC spells should end just like PC spells). I see no flaw with that logic, except that it means you can't hold DMs that interpret it as written accountable when someone gets their heirloom weapon made masterwork and then enchanted. I'm looking for something in the rules/guide that stops that.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Yes, Michael, I understand how cure light wounds is supposed to work.

I also understand how make whole, continual light, and masterwork transformation, and animate dead are all supposed to work. In all cases, the effects that remain are permanent throughout a campaign. None of those spells have changed since they were introduced (some before Third Edition).

Pathfinder Society Organized Play has a rule that says they don't work quite the same way, that all of them expire if they're cast by a PC but not if they're cast by an NPC. And I understand that, the way the guide is written, cure serious wounds and raise dead and all other spell effects expire at the end of a session.

Now, that was a hasty rule design with bad consequences. And so the need for unofficial "clarifications" distinguishing between spells that remove conditions versus those that don't. But it turned out that such a general principle was not quite what the design staff intended ...

As an aside: right now, if my character died and was raised in a scenario, my next game-master is well within his rights to rule that the effects of the spell have ended, and I need another raise dead to participate in the adventure. I don't think that's what Mark intended, but that's the way the Guide reads, and the FAQ don't dispute that.

Michael, I don't particularly care about the particulars of masterwork transformation being made legal, except insofar as I think that the PFS ruleset should be as close to the Pathfinder RPG ruleset as possible. I would be content if the campaign coordinator were to declare a fiat, that masterwork trnasformation joins with awaken as a prohibited spell. Same with continual light or animate dead, if the campaign staff thinks that those spells are not good for the game.

But I think that the Venture Captains (the folks who are currently making the rules, yes?) are making a serious mistake by piling rules exceptions one atop the other. This most recent rule, that NPCs will refuse to cast spells like continual light, is the latest, and strangest, of those rules exceptions.

As I say, all of these rules are nothing more than suggestions until they hit the FAQ. Once people are ready to make that official rule, I would strongly urge the campaign staff to find straightforward language ("the effects of the following seven spells fade between scenarios") rather than grasp for general principles that don't quite match the staff's intent.

One last note, Michael. If I've misinterpretted the main ruleset, I apologize, but I don't think the main ruleset in in question. In the PathfinderRPG , the effects of cure serious wounds are permanent. No question about it. So are the effects of continual light. And so are the effects of dozens of other spells, some of which work in PFS, some of which don't. It's not the main ruleset that's in question. It's the particular alterations to the main ruleset that leave me confused.

Sovereign Court

sieylianna wrote:
I think the simplest fix is just to expand the list of prohibited spells. If you can't cast a spell in a PFS module, then there are no arguments over what happens when the module ends. This is already done for Awaken and other spells, I don't understand why there is reluctance to handle new problem spells in the same way.

Agreed, if the spell is that much of a problem, that is the simplest fix. I think the problem isn't really the spell but the heirloom weapon trait.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Zape wrote:
I'm not trying to be difficult, and RAI vs RAW is the best argument I've seen so far (NPC spells should end just like PC spells).

Zape, I don't think that's the intent. If a villain casts blindness or contagion on a PC, I don't think anyone intends for those effects to wash away harmlessly at the end of the scenario. For one thing, people would have to track whether a disease came from a spell or normal disease-catching.


Michael Griffin-Wade wrote:
So what your asking Fozzy is to recreate the RPG book. Come on now guys you'r just being condescending now.

No. That is not what I am asking as well. I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here that you are not being deliberately obtuse.

The CORE RULES are quite clear on how spells behave.

The PFS house rules (ie, the Guide4.0) modify how every permanent and instantaneous spell works. Every one of them.

"GUIDE4.0 wrote:

Any spell cast by a PC during the course of a scenario

that is still active at the end of a scenario ends when the
scenario does.
For example, if your cleric PC casts bless on
the party and bless is still active when the scenario ends,
the bless spell ends at the conclusion of the scenario. This
includes spells with an instantaneous or permanent
duration, such as continual flame, create undead or fabricate.

This rule. In GUIDE4.0 modifies Animate Dead (Instantaneous Duration). It modifies Continual Flame (Permanent). It also modifies Cure Light Wounds (Instantaneous Duration).

This means, that according to the campaign rules (not the core rules), cure light wounds ends at the end of a module.

Yes, I know that it is not getting applied that way. But this is because GM's are ignoring this rule when it comes to CLW, but they are not ignoring this rule when it comes to Animate Dead.

It is only through ignorance of this campaign house rule that huge numbers of characters don't suddenly drop dead at the end of each module.

The campaign house rule is poorly written.

Maybe I should start enforcing the rule, as written in games that I run. Maybe a few complaints to a VC about dead characters at the end of the module might convince you that the rule needs rewriting?

But no. I won't do that to my players. So I, along with every other PFS GM will simply ignore the rule as written and write in lots of band-aid text.

Sovereign Court

Chris Mortika wrote:
Zape wrote:
I'm not trying to be difficult, and RAI vs RAW is the best argument I've seen so far (NPC spells should end just like PC spells).
Zape, I don't think that's the intent. If a villain casts blindness or contagion on a PC, I don't think anyone intends for those effects to wash away harmlessly at the end of the scenario. For one thing, people would have to track whether a disease came from a spell or normal disease-catching.

You could just as easily say "Purchased NPC spells end just like PC Spells". It's still a point of contention until such a change finds it's way to the guide, or the spell gets removed from availability.

Sadly, I feel like these are just justifications to maintain the integrity of the patched heirloom weapon trait.


Fozzy Hammer wrote:
But no. I won't do that to my players. So I, along with every other PFS GM will simply ignore the rule as written and write in lots of band-aid text.

Actually, I think you might be looking at this from the wrong perspective. What seems to be advocated, is there's a whole bunch of rules/guidelines that may not work, but are "fairly obvious how they should work". Paizo employees have said in this thread and others, that you should go with the "fairly obvious way it should work". This means you have huge leeway in how you want pretty much every mechanic to work, so long as you can make an argument that the way you want a mechanic to work is "fairly obvious", since we've been told a number of times to not be slaves to the RAW when it is clear what was intended.

The fact that what is clear to one group may not necessarily what will be clear to another group does not appear to be an issue.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Zape wrote:
Chris Mortika wrote:
Zape wrote:
I'm not trying to be difficult, and RAI vs RAW is the best argument I've seen so far (NPC spells should end just like PC spells).
Zape, I don't think that's the intent. If a villain casts blindness or contagion on a PC, I don't think anyone intends for those effects to wash away harmlessly at the end of the scenario. For one thing, people would have to track whether a disease came from a spell or normal disease-catching.

You could just as easily say "Purchased NPC spells end just like PC Spells". It's still a point of contention until such a change finds it's way to the guide, or the spell gets removed from availability.

Sadly, I feel like these are just justifications to maintain the integrity of the patched heirloom weapon trait.

I'm happy to get an answer on whether i can transform my heirloom weapon, or just have to buy a masterwork whip. To me there's not much difference. Game rules wise it boils down to a 1 point difference in my stats when i trip someone. Could they have patched the trait similarly to how they patched gunslinger's guns? (broken until 300gp is expended to make it masterwork and fix it? )yeah they could have. would that have given me a different avenue to pursue with my character? sure.

I don't see why Masterwork Transformation can't work, since its legal for play. And while I was asking about it, it occurred to me, and i saw that it has already occurred to others, that the guide is vague and poorly written on this point. And that is the bigger question, with instantaneous spells that currently should expire.

none of us are asking for a change in the main rules. we're asking the guide to be updated, or an FAQ for society play, something mark is within his powers to do.

as written, i COULD go up to an NPC, have them cast the LEGAL masterwork transformation spell, and be done with it. I could also go up to an NPC , have them cast CONTINUAL LIGHT on a coin or a dagger, and carry that with me as a torch throughout my character's career.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Caedwyr wrote:

Actually, I think you might be looking at this from the wrong perspective. What seems to be advocated, is there's a whole bunch of rules/guidelines that may not work, but are "fairly obvious how they should work". Paizo employees have said in this thread and others, that you should go with the "fairly obvious way it should work". This means you have huge leeway in how you want pretty much every mechanic to work, so long as you can make an argument that the way you want a mechanic to work is "fairly obvious", since we've been told a number of times to not be slaves to the RAW when it is clear what was intended.

The fact that what is clear to one group may not necessarily what will be clear to another group does not appear to be an issue.

I think the real issue that is coming up is that the instantaneous duration has two different meanings:

1. Over with in an instant. Damage spells, healing, pretty flashes of light, etc all fall into thsi category. These spells have their effect and go away. Most people would say that the intent of the PFS rule is that these retain their effects after the scenario ends.

2. "More permanent that permanent."(How a local player described it back in 3.0) These spells have or create an ongoing effect, but one that does not radiate magic and can't be dispelled. The idea is that the change happens in an instant, then what is left is nonmagical in nature. These would be things like animate dead, fabricate, and so forth. I think the intent is that these effects do end after each scenario.


Caedwyr wrote:
Fozzy Hammer wrote:
But no. I won't do that to my players. So I, along with every other PFS GM will simply ignore the rule as written and write in lots of band-aid text.

Actually, I think you might be looking at this from the wrong perspective. What seems to be advocated, is there's a whole bunch of rules/guidelines that may not work, but are "fairly obvious how they should work". Paizo employees have said in this thread and others, that you should go with the "fairly obvious way it should work". This means you have huge leeway in how you want pretty much every mechanic to work, so long as you can make an argument that the way you want a mechanic to work is "fairly obvious", since we've been told a number of times to not be slaves to the RAW when it is clear what was intended.

The fact that what is clear to one group may not necessarily what will be clear to another group does not appear to be an issue.

Ya. That would work fine in a home campaign, where a good GM can do wonders to make up for poor design and crappy writing and failed attempts at editing.

But in an organized play setting, players have a right to expect that rules will be applied uniformly from table to table, and GM to GM. So what might be obvious to one GM is by no means obvious to another. For example, while Chris Mortika and I are in apparent agreement in this thread, we are very nearly polar opposite in how we view evil or borderline evil or non-good acts by PC's. We had a whole thread end without a single bit of Paizo input other than to close the thread down when the argument gained some heat. So no, it's not at all fairly obvious how that was supposed to go. In fact, given the dearth of Paizo input on this thread, it's not at all obvious how this is supposed to be ruled.

What may be obvious to you, may not be obvious to all, or even anyone else. Saying "It's obvious" is simply a shortcut way of saying "I can't be bothered to make myself clear. Everyone guess what I'm thinking!!!" (There's a Dilbert cartoon in there somewhere, with the Pointed Haired Menace shouting "It's Obvious!!!")

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Chris Mortika wrote:
Speaking for myself as a table-GM, I have no idea what the campaign leaders want.

I have a guess.. It's to put an absolute ceiling on the scaling of the Hierloom weapon trait which essentially gives a stacking +1 on top of all the other plusses a weapon can garner in the course of it's life. IF it wasn't for the existence of this trait, it would be an absolute non-issue. Just as Arcane Mark was never a spell that anyone would prepare, or even spend money to put into a spellbook, before the Magus class burst onto the scene.

If allowed to scale naturally, an Heirloom weapon becomes the most powerful weapon in the game, and the Heirloom trait becomes essentially the equivalent of the Weapon Focus feat.

Paizo went about this the wrong way. What they should have done was simply to put masterwork transformation on the banned spells list entirely if this was what they wished to do. I myself think the original mistake was to create the Heirloom trait in the first place.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

i hear "its obvious" in a Kathy Griffin voice.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Seraphimpunk wrote:
i hear "its obvious" in a Kathy Griffin voice.

Yes it is, but the arguments about this seem to be missing this one central point.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
LazarX wrote:


Paizo went about this the wrong way. What they should have done was simply to put masterwork transformation on the banned spells list entirely if this was what they wished to do. I myself think the original mistake was to create the Heirloom trait in the first place.

or just make it a +1 trait bonus. it being a +2 bonus, the equivalent of a full feat like improved disarm, kinda breaks the "half feat" guidelines most of the traits go by.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Seraphimpunk wrote:
LazarX wrote:


Paizo went about this the wrong way. What they should have done was simply to put masterwork transformation on the banned spells list entirely if this was what they wished to do. I myself think the original mistake was to create the Heirloom trait in the first place.

or just make it a +1 trait bonus. it being a +2 bonus, the equivalent of a full feat like improved disarm, kinda breaks the "half feat" guidelines most of the traits go by.

That's the problem... the Heirloom feat IS giving a +1 trait bonus that would stack on top of everything else.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

coordinators likely had bigger spells in mind when they drafted the pfs guide 4.0, i'm pretty sure that part didn't change from 3, predating the masterwork transformation feat and the heirloom weapon trait ( i'm guessing. i'm not a pfs historian. i have no ranks and thats not a DC 10 check ).

it seems more like its meant to prevent fabrication, crafting things, and then selling for a profit, or for creating an army of undead. But then we're getting into their intent, which isn't clear.


Fozzy Hammer wrote:
Caedwyr wrote:
Fozzy Hammer wrote:
But no. I won't do that to my players. So I, along with every other PFS GM will simply ignore the rule as written and write in lots of band-aid text.

Actually, I think you might be looking at this from the wrong perspective. What seems to be advocated, is there's a whole bunch of rules/guidelines that may not work, but are "fairly obvious how they should work". Paizo employees have said in this thread and others, that you should go with the "fairly obvious way it should work". This means you have huge leeway in how you want pretty much every mechanic to work, so long as you can make an argument that the way you want a mechanic to work is "fairly obvious", since we've been told a number of times to not be slaves to the RAW when it is clear what was intended.

The fact that what is clear to one group may not necessarily what will be clear to another group does not appear to be an issue.

Ya. That would work fine in a home campaign, where a good GM can do wonders to make up for poor design and crappy writing and failed attempts at editing.

But in an organized play setting, players have a right to expect that rules will be applied uniformly from table to table, and GM to GM. So what might be obvious to one GM is by no means obvious to another. For example, while Chris Mortika and I are in apparent agreement in this thread, we are very nearly polar opposite in how we view evil or borderline evil or non-good acts by PC's. We had a whole thread end without a single bit of Paizo input other than to close the thread down when the argument gained some heat. So no, it's not at all fairly obvious how that was supposed to go. In fact, given the dearth of Paizo input on this thread, it's not at all obvious how this is supposed to be ruled.

What may be obvious to you, may not be obvious to all, or even anyone else. Saying "It's obvious" is simply a shortcut way of saying "I can't be bothered to make myself clear. Everyone guess what I'm...

What I was trying to get at, is that Paizo seems to be arguing that you and every GM are free to interpret what is the "obvious" intent of the rules in PFS. While I'm sure this means it is easier to design and write rules, I'm not sure of the effect on an organized play campaign. It isn't what I would have expected to be the way of handling these situations in an organized play environment, but then again, I'm not the one running the organized play.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
LazarX wrote:


That's the problem... the Heirloom feat IS giving a +1 trait bonus that would stack on top of everything else.

i'm nit picking

Quote:


Benefit: When you select this trait, choose one of the following benefits:

proficiency with that specific weapon
a +1 trait bonus on attacks of opportunity with that specific weapon
a +2 trait bonus on one kind of combat maneuver when using that specific weapon.

that's accurate right? snagged from pfsrd.com, so i can never tell. they list some feats from Seekers and Secrets as coming from APG. =P.

anyway its a +1 on aoo , or +2 on one combat maneuver.
with an Heirloom Flail, that can give someone a +4 to disarm, or +2 to trip, before adding on any feats. vs. +2/+0 to disarm or trip.
I'm using it to trip, so with my feats i've got a +4 at first level, on top of my bab/str. vs. having only a +2. its not broken, and hardly dangerous. but compared with just having a mwk flail, +3 disarm/+1 trip, or +3/+3 with my improved trip feat.

the 1 point breaks nothing. especially with how hard it gets to disarm/trip things at higher levels.

Grand Lodge

Caedwyr wrote:
What I was trying to get at, is that Paizo seems to be arguing that you and every GM are free to interpret what is the "obvious" intent of the rules in PFS.

For the record you are quoting a Paizo employee out of context from a thread which is outside of the PFS subset of message boards. While what Sean has to say is refreshing, it's also not really in the spirit of what Organized Play is about.

Liberty's Edge

Mark Garringer wrote:
Mike Schneider wrote:
<Example of something I often find maddening on Paizo forum....>
Poster #1 wrote:

So, either:

1) Cast it yourself and get it turned into a magic weapon by the end of the scenario.

or

2) Have an NPC cast it and thus it will not end at the end of the scenario, and you can keep it mw or enchant it whenever you feel like.

Both sound perfectly legit to me.

I.e., ray of sunshine for the Heirloom PCs. ....But wait:

Poster #2 wrote:

Mark clarified instantaneous spells here.

Paraphrasing, a spell which removes a condition (including damage) does not revert to reinstating the condition. A spell which creates or enchants or transmutes (etc) will expire at the end of a scenario.

So because masterwork transformation actually changes the weapon into something different, it expires. Make whole, which removes the broken condition, would not.

Dark clouds suddenly close in on the ray of sunshine. Or do they? -- What Poster 2 writes doesn't directly refute what Poster 1 wrote, or address it (and thus the maddening incongruity prompting one to grab a fistful of hair and begin to tear).

Poster #3 wrote:
Not a matter of the utmost urgency but it would be nice to have the Heirloom Weapon issue finally put to bed.

Exactly.

One gets a general impression that the campaign doesn't like it, but that it isn't willing to definitively "put its foot down" (when doing so would be as easy as just saying so) for some reason which remains evasively obtuse from the player's perspective.

Since it is presently not legal to do so, I'm not sure how this could be more definitive?
Three dozen more posts wrote:
<bickerbicker over whether that is actually so>

I warned y'all this would happen over a month ago.

It's compounded by the inability to actually swap-out Heirloom Weapon for a different trait (as you could if it were an altered feat which affects the character build due to change).


sieylianna wrote:
I think the simplest fix is just to expand the list of prohibited spells.

Meanwhile I think that the better solution is to go through the list of legal spells and make a list of things that you think shouldn't be allowed in PFS.

For example:

Animate dead: We don't want a wizard or cleric showing up to a table with a legion of skeletons.

Fix: Limit it to one creature as with animal companions, familiars, eidolons, etc. Problem solved.

Go through spell by spell. See what minimal adjustments you need to make in order to comply with the nature of organized play.

Rather than take a line of 'well this is what it's been!' go with an attitude of 'what's up with this here?' and you need not be a slave to history.

Each organized campaign that I've seen do such an overhaul has benefited from it.

We can see that this rule needs attention. So give it more than just a quick fix, as PFS deserves better than that.

-James


Mark Garringer wrote:
Caedwyr wrote:
What I was trying to get at, is that Paizo seems to be arguing that you and every GM are free to interpret what is the "obvious" intent of the rules in PFS.
For the record you are quoting a Paizo employee out of context from a thread which is outside of the PFS subset of message boards. While what Sean has to say is refreshing, it's also not really in the spirit of what Organized Play is about.

Ah, my mistake. I thought Michael Griffin-Wade was essentially arguing the same thing. I'll bow out here then, since I'm clearly missing some subtleties of the argument in this thread.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Seraphimpunk wrote:
i COULD go up to an NPC, have them cast the LEGAL masterwork transformation spell, and be done with it. I could also go up to an NPC , have them cast CONTINUAL LIGHT on a coin or a dagger, and...

Perhaps. But if we all want to intentionally ignore that fact that Mark has specifically commented on these, it is not in everyone's best interest to be "ignorant" about the RAI.

Let's all take a breath here. The points have been made and there is a lot of misrepresentation of the rules starting to occur that is likely to muddy the topic. While the quote from Sean was not necessarily directed at organized play, it is becoming more apparent in its application.

You may not like the current rules as they exist, but:
-Masterwork Transformation does not extend beyond the end of the scenario in which it was cast regardless of who casts it
-Continual Flame does not extend beyond the end of the scenario in which it was cast regardless of who casts it
-"cure" or "remove" condition spells DO continue past the end of the scenario
-the RAW in the Guide covering spell affects extending beyond the end of a scenario should be reviewed and possibly reworded for clarity. Perhaps a specific list of any spells that are exceptions to the standard rule should be added or at least entered in the FAQ.

Mike (the new campaign coordinator) is in transition and should be reviewing this (and other) topics over the coming weeks. Have a bit of patience. I am sure he will make appropriate changes/updates to the Guide and more importantly, the FAQ.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Mike Schneider wrote:

It's compounded by the inability to actually swap-out Heirloom Weapon for a different trait (as you could if it were an altered feat which affects the character build due to change).

Pathfinder Player Companion: Adventurer's Armory wrote:


Only the 2nd printing of this book or the 1st printing augmented by the current errata (released 7/21/11) are legal for play in Pathfinder Society Organized Play. Everything in this book is legal for play with the following two exceptions: a pseudodragon is not legal for purchase unless you're a wizard with the Improved Familiar feat and elephants are never legal for play. Characters with the heirloom weapon trait who gained the trait prior to 7/21/11 may keep the masterwork weapon granted by the previous version of the feat but lose all other benefits of the previous version of the trait, replacing them with one of the new granted benefits. If the selected weapon was an exotic weapon, you may retrain any existing feat with Exotic Weapon Proficiency or change the weapon type to a simple or martial weapon and retrain any feats dependent on the original weapon (such as Weapon Focus or Critical Focus) to the newly selected weapon. Any enhancement bonuses added to an exotic weapon transfer to the replacement martial or simple weapon if you take the second option. These changes to your character must be documented on a Chronicle sheet and initialed by a GM.

I suppose I don't understand your argument Mike. I bolded the pertinent text. Masterwork transformation does not affect anyone who had Heirloom Weapon prior to 7/21/11, as their heirloom weapon is grandfathered in as masterwork.

It only affects those who want to take heirloom weapon after 7/21/11.

Liberty's Edge 4/5

Bob Jonquet wrote:

You may not like the current rules as they exist, but:

-Masterwork Transformation does not extend beyond the end of the scenario in which it was cast regardless of who casts it

Do you have a citation for this, or is it assumed from context somewhere? I checked this thread, and there is no responses here from Mark Moreland.

Quote:
-Continual Flame does not extend beyond the end of the scenario in which it was cast regardless of who casts it

And I would love to see the citation on this one, since there are two instances, at least, where this is not true.

Everburning Torches and Ioun Torches are both instances where an NPC casting of Continual Flame extends past the end of a scenario.

Or are you also going to be adding yet more qualifiers to the rule?

Right now, the rule as written is easily misinterpreted, apparently. And we shouldn't have to be going on RAI for an Organized Play campaign, since that can lead to bad things, including serious table variation for some spells.

Right now, if someone comes to your table with a Masterwork Heirloom Weapon, you would have to do extensive research to determine if it is a "legal" masterwork heirloom weapon or illegal, or something allowed by table variation at some tables but not others. Ugly. Just plain ugly.

And, since there is nothing in the FAQ on it, and the rules are written as the rules are written at present, using an NPC to cast Masterwork Transformation on your Full Plate armor and then enchanting it appears to be campaign-legal.

PFSOP v4.0 wrote:

Any spell cast by a PC during the course of a scenario

that is still active at the end of a scenario ends when the
scenario does. For example, if your cleric PC casts bless on
the party and bless is still active when the scenario ends,
the bless spell ends at the conclusion of the scenario. This
includes spells with an instantaneous or permanent
duration, such as continual flame, create undead or fabricate.
Ultimate Magic wrote:

Maste rwork Transformat ion

School transmutation; Level bard 2, cleric 2, druid 2, sorcerer/
wizard 2, witch 2
Casting Time 1 hour
Components V, S, M (see below)
Range touch
Target one weapon, suit of armor, shield, tool, or skill kit touched
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance no
You convert a non-masterwork item into its masterwork
equivalent. A normal sword becomes a masterwork sword, a
suit of leather armor becomes a masterwork suit of leather
armor, a set of thieves’ tools becomes masterwork thieves’
tools, and so on. If the target object has no masterwork
equivalent, the spell has no effect. You can affect 50 pieces
of ammunition as if they were one weapon. You decide if the
object’s appearance changes to reflect this improved quality.
The material component for the spell is magical reagents
worth the cost difference between a normal item and the
equivalent masterwork item (typically 300 gp for a weapon,
150 gp for armor, or 50 gp for a tool). If an object has multiple
masterwork options (such as a double weapon, or a spiked
shield that could be made masterwork as a weapon or armor),
you choose one option of the object to affect (though you can
cast the spell again to affect another option).
PFSOP v4.0 wrote:

Generally speaking, you can pay to have spells cast on

you at any time during the scenario so long as you’re in
a settlement or have access to a church, temple, shrine,
or wandering mystic. Page 163 of the Pathfinder RPG Core
Rulebook covers the rules for purchasing spellcasting
services and the associated costs are listed in the
“Spellcasting and Services” table on page 159.
Core Rulebook wrote:

Spellcasting Caster level × spell level × 10 gp3

3 See spell description for additional costs. If the
additional costs put the spell’s total cost above 3,000 gp,
that spell is not generally available. Use a spell level of
1/2 for 0-level spells to calculate the cost.

So, 60 gp + 300/150/50 gp for Masterwork Transformation, well under the 3,000 gp limit...

So, if you follow the RAI as interpreted by certain VCs, including the one who needs training in tact & diplomacy, this perfectly rules legal option is not legal. Unfortunately, RAW is what we are supposed to work with.

IMO, and I am just a player/GM, Masterwork Transformation should be included as an exception to the spells end at the end of the scenario, just like Stone to Flesh, Cure Light Wounds, Raise Dead, and Restoration are, even if only tacitly.

Shadow Lodge

Bob Jonquet wrote:


You may not like the current rules as they exist, but:
-Masterwork Transformation does not extend beyond the end of the scenario in which it was cast regardless of who casts it
-Continual Flame does not extend beyond the end of the scenario in which it was cast regardless of who casts it
-"cure" or "remove" condition spells DO continue past the end of the scenario.

These are patently false per the PFS Organized Play rules and nothing said by Mark "directly commenting" on these contradicts said Organized play rules. You are making things up.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Varthanna wrote:
These are patently false per the PFS Organized Play rules and nothing said by Mark "directly commenting" on these contradicts said Organized play rules. You are making things up.

In THIS thread, Mark confirms that Masterwork Transformation does not extend beyond the end of the scenario.

In THIS thread, Mark confirms that Continual Flame does not extend past the scenario in which it is cast.

IMO, arguing the concept that the rules only apply to PC casters and that NPC casters are somehow exempt from these, is just "rules-lawyery."

My main point continues to be that we keep asking for rulings/clarifications from Mark, but when they are given, most just ignore them because of the "must be printed in the Guide or FAQ" rule. It is ridiculous, IMO, to ignore knowledge just because it does not come in a particular format. This is a game and everyone needs to treat it as such and not like some court case where the smallest nuances of the law destroy common sense.

In the vast majority of the cases, we all know what the intended rules are. We also know there are some rules both in the core game and organized play that need to be reworked for clarity. Mike Brock will be working to resolve these undefined issues in the very near future.

Callarek wrote:
So, if you follow the RAI as interpreted by certain VCs, including the one who needs training in tact & diplomacy, this perfectly rules legal option is not legal.

I hope you are not referring to me. I try very hard to remain as neutral as possible on these discussions.

Callarek wrote:


Unfortunately, RAW is what we are supposed to work with.

Honestly, in most cases, I don't have a strong opinion on whether or not the existing rule is good vs. bad. I am more concerned with trying to ensure the rule is applied correctly. I really don't care if Continual Flame is allowed to be permanent, per the core rules, or it ends at the conclusion of the mod. I just know, per Mark's own words, that it currently does not persist. Hopefully, this will make it to the FAQ in the very near future.

You are free to object to my using the forums as a support tool to adjudicate rule issues, but I will continue to do so. Once I have confirmation directly from a game designer/developer, I am comfortable with using that info to determine how something should work in PFS.

Paizo Employee Franchise Manager

2 people marked this as a favorite.

We recognize that the rule is unclear, and working that into something that doesn't cause threads like this is high on the agenda for our new campaign coordinator. Until such time as we clarify or change the rules as written, folks need to take off their rules lawyer hats and play the game as best you can interpreting the rules in the spirit of the game and not in an effort to be right and to find every loophole.

Needless to say, this thread has run its course. We get it. The rule needs to be reevaluated. It's been flagged for an FAQ. Thread locked. The end.

51 to 89 of 89 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Masterwork Transformation legal for PFS play? All Messageboards