Hey all.
So I am looking at the trait Heirloom Weapon
However how do I make that weapon Masterwork?
if I always will be useing that same weapon I am not sure under the PFS rules, how I someday get it enchanted.
Any help would be great.
|
Paying an NPC to cast Masterwork transformation SHOULD work, since NPC spells don't go poof at the end of the scenario.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Paying an NPC to cast Masterwork transformation SHOULD work, since NPC spells don't go poof at the end of the scenario.
I think it was stated that this doesn't work either, but I'm a little fuzzy on it.
REALLY glad I asked.
Thanks guys.
|
|
NPC spells go poof at the end of a scenario as well.
Can you source that?
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.
That would seem to imply that NPC spells don't go poof. (but it wouldn't surprise me if they'd changed it somewhere)
|
NPC spells go poof at the end of a scenario as well.Can you source that?
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.That would seem to imply that NPC spells don't go poof. (but it wouldn't surprise me if they'd changed it somewhere)
You cannot go hire an NPC to cast a permanent spell to get around the “permanent and immediate spell effects don’t last past the end of a scenario” rule. It would be silly if you could. Otherwise people could hire NPCs to cast polymorph and create undead and such.
|
|
You cannot go hire an NPC to cast a permanent spell to get around the “permanent and immediate spell effects don’t last past the end of a scenario” rule. It would be silly if you could. Otherwise people could hire NPCs to cast polymorph and create undead and such.
Its still using a resource this way, gold. Its not a freebie from another player.
Polymorph any object is 8th level, and thus out of reach for spell-casting services. Create undead would give control to the NPC, not to you (you could take control with command undead, but as a PC ability that would end at the end of the scenario)
|
|
You cannot go hire an NPC to cast a permanent spell to get around the “permanent and immediate spell effects don’t last past the end of a scenario” rule. It would be silly if you could. Otherwise people could hire NPCs to cast polymorph and create undead and such.Its still using a resource this way, gold. Its not a freebie from another player.
Polymorph any object is 8th level, and thus out of reach for spell-casting services. Create undead would give control to the NPC, not to you (you could take control with command undead, but as a PC ability that would end at the end of the scenario)
You cannot do it to end-around the rule dude. Sorry.
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Mark Moreland said it's not intended that you can do it, and that it will be fixed.
So far it has not, however in PFS we run the rules as written, not as we or Mark or Andrew think they should be run.
Should it work to have an NPC cast it? No.
Does it currently work to have an NPC cast it? Yes.
|
|
Mark Moreland said it's not intended that you can do it, and that it will be fixed.
So far it has not, however in PFS we run the rules as written, not as we or Mark or Andrew think they should be run.
Should it work to have an NPC cast it? No.
Does it currently work to have an NPC cast it? Yes.
Even though it is not official (as in not in the guide or FAQ), to do so in spite of the campaign developer saying it shouldn’t work that way, is wrong in my opinion.
If you know the intent, whether it is “official” or not, to do so anyways is flaunting the loophole and cheesy.
As a GM, I will not allow it at my table. I choose to use the "unofficial" ruling at my tables.
|
|
NPC spells go poof at the end of a scenario as well.Can you source that?
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.That would seem to imply that NPC spells don't go poof. (but it wouldn't surprise me if they'd changed it somewhere)
pg.19 of PFS 4.1 A mundane item can not be upgraded to masterwork, nor can nonmagical aspects of equipment be upgraded (such as the strength rating on a composite bow).
pg. 20 of PFS 4.1 The following spells found in the Core Rulebook are not legal for play and may never be used, found, purchased, or learned in any form by PCs playing Pathfinder Society scenarios: awaken, permanency, and reincarnate.
I just checked on the additional resources page and it not listed so it looks like your good. Its still going to cost you 300gp for the spell materials and the gp for purchasing the NPC casting.
It may have been ruled other wise on the boards but no change is to be considered official until it appears either in the most recent update to the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play (this booklet) or in the official campaign FAQ.
|
|
NPC spells go poof at the end of a scenario as well.Can you source that?
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.That would seem to imply that NPC spells don't go poof. (but it wouldn't surprise me if they'd changed it somewhere)
pg.19 of PFS 4.1 A mundane item can not be upgraded to masterwork, nor can nonmagical aspects of equipment be upgraded (such as the strength rating on a composite bow).
pg. 20 of PFS 4.1 The following spells found in the Core Rulebook are not legal for play and may never be used, found, purchased, or learned in any form by PCs playing Pathfinder Society scenarios: awaken, permanency, and reincarnate.
I just checked on the additional resources page and it not listed so it looks like your good. Its still going to cost you 300gp for the spell materials and the gp for purchasing the NPC casting.
It may have been ruled other wise on the boards but the boards are not legal unless on the FAQ page.
It isn’t that board posts aren’t legal. It’s that they are “unofficial” until in an official document. GMs are allowed to use or not use board posts by campaign developers and coordinators as they wish until said post is either made redundant or obsolete by campaign documentation.
|
|
You cannot do it to end-around the rule dude. Sorry.You cannot go hire an NPC to cast a permanent spell to get around the “permanent and immediate spell effects don’t last past the end of a scenario” rule. It would be silly if you could. Otherwise people could hire NPCs to cast polymorph and create undead and such.Its still using a resource this way, gold. Its not a freebie from another player.
Polymorph any object is 8th level, and thus out of reach for spell-casting services. Create undead would give control to the NPC, not to you (you could take control with command undead, but as a PC ability that would end at the end of the scenario)
The rule is specifically for spells cast by PC's. If they meant something else thats fine and it really wouldn't surprise me at this point, but you seem to take it as a personal affront that i want to see something else indicating that.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
We seem to have forgotten things. Like Mark's ruling on this here. Here is also the monster thread that it spurned from.
|
|
Have not forgotten.
Mike says it's not supposed to work, please don't do it and that it'll be fixed it eventually.
However, until such time as it's actually fixed, it still works.
Do I think it's something you should do? No.
Do I think it will be fixed eventually? Yes.
Is it something I've done? No.
Do I think it's currently legal? Yes.
|
|
We seem to have forgotten things. Like Mark's ruling on this here. Here is also the monster thread that it spurned from.
Walt,
My search-fu was off. Mark's remark doesnt clarfiy much, I would have like the spell to be placed right on the FAQ page under Ultimate Magic under spells that are prohibited. That would be the simple solution that wont spawn anyore threads.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
*shrug*
What's been stated is pretty clear to me. It's about following the spirit of the game. Heirloom weapon + Masterwork Transformation =/= the spirit of the game to me.
EDIT: I almost feel like it would be more in the spirit of the game to eliminate the trait and keep the spell. You don't need a trait to have something that's an heirloom from your family -- especially since you're shelling out gold for it at creation anyway.
|
|
*shrug*
What's been stated is pretty clear to me. It's about following the spirit of the game. Heirloom weapon + Masterwork Transformation =/= the spirit of the game to me.
EDIT: I almost feel like it would be more in the spirit of the game to eliminate the trait and keep the spell. You don't need a trait to have something that's an heirloom from your family -- especially since you're shelling out gold for it at creation anyway.
It depends what they want to avoid at all costs.
List that out and then take the least invasive way to achieve it, don't have a plethora of special rules to avoid something that you can excise easily.
If it's heirloom weapon then remove it. If it's masterwork transformation then remove it.
But really the default should be the core rules. Exceptions should be taken into account for the nature of organized play, but neither are altered by that.
Per normal core rules a PC could take an heirloom weapon and then either themselves cast the spell or pay an NPC to do so.
So if this is a problem here then its most likely a problem with heirloom weapon. But frankly why is it a problem?
-James
Before I tackle this problem, I'm still waiting on the report from this one.
|
Rather agreed on just removing heirloom weapon. Pre errata, it wasn't all that bad (though the extra +1 to hit needed to go). However, now? It is nothing more than a trap option trait, and it does a disservice to players to leave it in. Although the concept of all spells going away at the end of a scenario annoys me....why don't all players drop dead as the healing they received goes *poof*?
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Before I tackle this problem, I'm still waiting on the report from this one.*shrug*
What's been stated is pretty clear to me. It's about following the spirit of the game. Heirloom weapon + Masterwork Transformation =/= the spirit of the game to me.
EDIT: I almost feel like it would be more in the spirit of the game to eliminate the trait and keep the spell. You don't need a trait to have something that's an heirloom from your family -- especially since you're shelling out gold for it at creation anyway.
It depends what they want to avoid at all costs.
List that out and then take the least invasive way to achieve it, don't have a plethora of special rules to avoid something that you can excise easily.
If it's heirloom weapon then remove it. If it's masterwork transformation then remove it.
But really the default should be the core rules. Exceptions should be taken into account for the nature of organized play, but neither are altered by that.
Per normal core rules a PC could take an heirloom weapon and then either themselves cast the spell or pay an NPC to do so.
So if this is a problem here then its most likely a problem with heirloom weapon. But frankly why is it a problem?
-James
Now we play the waiting game.
....Aww, this game sucks. Let's play hungry hungry hippos!
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I'm on record suggesting that the current state of affairs is kludgey and confusing.
Some campaign coordinator didn't like the idea of animate dead making permanent zombie-buddies, but didn't want to banish the spell entirely, so this "permanent spells cast by PCs aren't permanent" rule came into effect. Now, this applies to all permanent and instantaneous spells, including things like cure light wounds, continual light, cure blindness, etc.
Observe: it was a far-reaching response to a specific handful of spells the coordinator wanted to keep out of the PFS campaign. And it had drastic consequences.
So, someone (I believe it was Mark) refined the situation, saying that spells that removed a condition, like blindness, were exempt from this effect. Oh, and any spell that healed hit point damage, too. Raise dead removes one condition ("dead") with another ("suffer two negative levels"). By the current ruling, the removed condition should stay gone, but the imposed condition (those negative levels) should end at the conclusion of the scenario, but nobody's noticed that, yet.
So, players tried to get around this by paying NPCs to cast these spells. And the response was broadened: "any spells cast by PCs, or by NPCs in the service of PCs, end at the conclusion to the scenario, unless they remove a condition or heal hit points." A special rule that only applies to organized play and changes the way a lot of spells work.
So now ioun torches, which are nothing more than continual light cast by an NPC on a burnt-out ioun stone, blink out at the end of scenarios and need to be re-purchased each session.
I really think that the campaign would be better served if Mike reversed the strange special rule and simply added animate dead, and masterwork transformation and maybe a handful of other spells, to the list of "spells we don't like in PFS".
|
Event Coordinator - Dragon's Lair Comics & Fantasy®
|
Can't you just take the Gunsmithing feat and shell out 300gp to upgrade? I remember seeing somewhere that that's the rule in UC and they left it unchanged for PFS. Obviously I could be wrong, though.
EDIT: Woops, my mistake, got confused and thought we were talking about Gunslingers. Me=idiot.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Nope, Will. Read the description. Take a look at the cost, and the lack of Construct Wondrous Item in the requirements. The ioun torch just a spell on a rock. Same with an everburning torch, which is a spell on a stick. They are, explicitly, spells with a duration of permanent, cast by an NPC because a PC pays for them. Once the players get Chronicle sheets, they go out.
|
Event Coordinator - Dragon's Lair Comics & Fantasy®
|
The rule seems to be in place primarily to prevent permanent buffing on PCs--stuff like boosting your stats or getting a permanent fly spell or something like that. Casting spells on items in order to use those items for an external purpose (especially one as mundane as lighting an area) would therefore seem to be allowable. After all, you're allowed to enchant weaponry and armor.
As for damage and healing, the effects of such spells aren't negated at the end of a scenario because I believe it reads that the SPELL ends, not the spell's EFFECTS. Healing and damage spells are usually instantaneous; by the time the scenario's over, the spell's already ended anyway. This would only affect spells whose duration was still GOING, yes?
You're probably right that it could use more clarification though, Chris.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Thequickhoof, take a look at animate dead. It's an instantaneous spell, but its effects (a zombie-buddy) would normally be permanent. Because of the PFS rule, it ends when the Chronicle sheets are handed out.
Note that this rule is not always to the PCs' disadvantage. A couple months ago, I GMed a final battle where an NPC confused the party ranger, who started attacking the rest of the party. The party cleric cast blindness on the ranger. That's normally a serious spell, but the PCs knew the effects would end as soon as the adventure was over.
|
|
Rather agreed on just removing heirloom weapon. Pre errata, it wasn't all that bad (though the extra +1 to hit needed to go). However, now? It is nothing more than a trap option trait, and it does a disservice to players to leave it in. Although the concept of all spells going away at the end of a scenario annoys me....why don't all players drop dead as the healing they received goes *poof*?
This argument goes round and round and round, and its the same 3 people, every time, that come up with the same argument, every time.
Permanent or immediate spell effects end at the end of a session.
Spells that change a condition don't end, because the spell is not ongoing after the end of a session.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nope, Will. Read the description. Take a look at the cost, and the lack of Construct Wondrous Item in the requirements. The ioun torch just a spell on a rock. Same with an everburning torch, which is a spell on a stick. They are, explicitly, spells with a duration of permanent, cast by an NPC because a PC pays for them. Once the players get Chronicle sheets, they go out.
Nope, and any chronicle that I find that an ioun torch is written as gone because it was used, will be restored by me at my tables.
Its a named magic item that you can purchase. It is not a consumable.
|
|
Rather agreed on just removing heirloom weapon. Pre errata, it wasn't all that bad (though the extra +1 to hit needed to go). However, now? It is nothing more than a trap option trait, and it does a disservice to players to leave it in. Although the concept of all spells going away at the end of a scenario annoys me....why don't all players drop dead as the healing they received goes *poof*?This argument goes round and round and round, and its the same 3 people, every time, that come up with the same argument, every time.
Permanent or immediate spell effects end at the end of a session.
Spells that change a condition don't end, because the spell is not ongoing after the end of a session.
But that isn't how it is written in the guide. And what about the raise dead loophole, it changes the condition from dead. Applies a condition, the 2 negative levels. Also, how is a raise dead less ongoing than masterwork transformation? I am arguing for clarity in the rules. Why not just ban the few spells that need banning (permanency and animate dead should cover it)? What we have now is a rather kludgey set of rules that don't exactly make sense.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Andrew, I respect that.
Just as I expect you to respect that I'll follow the rules as best I can at my tables.
I don't understand what "named" has to do with anything, except for upgrading things like armor, weapons, and attribute-enhancing belts and headbands. If I've missed a specific PFS rule, please let me know.
Let me ask: are you suggesting there's any sort of distinction between the following two situations?
Situation 1: A player character approaches an NPC wizard and asks him to cast continual flame on the end of a torch. The NPC charges (Caster level × spell level × 10 gp) = 5 x 3 x 10 = 150 gold pieces and hands over a stick with the spell.
Situation 2 A player character approaches an NPC wizard and asks for an everburning torch, which the rulebook defines as an"otherwise normal torch [with] a continual flame spell cast on it."
Does the spell cast by an NPC who was paid by the PC extinguish in the first circumstance, but not the second? How can I justify that to the player who paid for the continual flame? Or does PFS use the rule "any spells cast by PCs, or by NPCs in the service of PCs, end at the conclusion to the scenario, unless they remove a condition or heal hit points, or unless it's continual flame, which ends if cast by a PC but not an NPC."
|
|
Situation 1: A player character approaches an NPC wizard and asks him to cast continual flame on the end of a torch. The NPC charges (Caster level × spell level × 10 gp) = 5 x 3 x 10 = 150 gold pieces and hands over a stick with the spell.Situation 2 A player character approaches an NPC wizard and asks for an everburning torch, which the rulebook defines as an"otherwise normal torch [with] a continual flame spell cast on it."
Does the spell cast by an NPC who was paid by the PC extinguish in the first circumstance, but not the second? How can I justify that to the player who paid for the continual flame? Or does PFS use the rule "any spells cast by PCs, or by NPCs in the service of PCs, end at the conclusion to the scenario, unless they remove a condition or heal hit points, or unless it's continual flame, which ends if cast by a PC but not an NPC."
There is no difference, since if a player asked a wizard for that at the end of one of my tables the way from example 1 I would just have them write "Everburning Torch" on their chronicle sheet. The torch goes out in neither circumstance. I read the intent of the fact that Continual Flame would typically go away to be that for whatever reason they don't want characters with Everburning Sheilds/Swords/Pants etc. I have a hard time seeing the justification for destroying a character's wonderous item over this, and I would follow Andrew's example of restoring the item.
Of course, I tend to always err on the side of letting players do things, which I know not all DMs do. It kind of make me sad when I hear players have to ask at the beginning of a slot "Will you let me use an Ioun Torch?", something that I have heard more than once.
Back to the original situation on the thread for a minnit...
Why do people have this ongoing problem/sense of entitlement about upgrading a normal weapon to a masterwork weapon?
Ever since the idea of 'masterwork' was spawned -- 3E? -- it has been a case of the item having to be crafted that way ab initio. I don't know when the 'Masterwork Transformation' spell was created, but it was a dumb idea.
If you want a masterwork weapon, GO BUY ONE. That's how it works, how it has always worked. If the (insert weapon type here) you inherited isn't masterwork, well, that's just too damn bad, isn't it? Maybe you should have been born into a wealthier family.
Seriously.
Let it go, and go buy yourself a masterwork whatever it is.
|
Venture-Captain, Massachusetts—Central & West
|
Back to the original situation on the thread for a minnit...
Why do people have this ongoing problem/sense of entitlement about upgrading a normal weapon to a masterwork weapon?
Ever since the idea of 'masterwork' was spawned -- 3E? -- it has been a case of the item having to be crafted that way ab initio. I don't know when the 'Masterwork Transformation' spell was created, but it was a dumb idea.
If you want a masterwork weapon, GO BUY ONE. That's how it works, how it has always worked. If the (insert weapon type here) you inherited isn't masterwork, well, that's just too damn bad, isn't it? Maybe you should have been born into a wealthier family.
Seriously.
Let it go, and go buy yourself a masterwork whatever it is.
The problem is like what Jiggy said. The Heirloom weapon trait does not give proficiency with a TYPE of weapon. It gives proficiency with ONE weapon (just the heirloom weapon).
So people take that trait to get proficiency in something that they normally don't. If they don't naturally have proficiency in that type of weapon, then buy a different weapon of the same type as the heirloom, they won't have proficiency in it.
For example, as a Human Druid, a character wouldn't be proficient in Longbows. They take the Heirloom weapon trait to be able to use one. They are not proficient in all longbows, just the heirloom one.
As Jiggy said, it's a bit of a trap.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
>facepalm<
I've never used traits, wasn't aware of THAT little gem of an idiotic idea. There is NO WAY for proficiency with the Longbow '...of my Grandfather' to NOT transfer to other longbows. That is utterly, entirely, and in all ways INCONCEIVABLE.
However, that is not a good reason to let people turn humdrum, ho-hum, everyday weapons into masterwork weapons. Buy the Magic Weapon/Greater Etc. spell on a scroll for your party wizard (heck, you can get a wand of the first one -- what level is GMW?) if you absolutely MUST use your heirloom with an enhancement bonus.
I fail to see this being a trap. Except for people who don't know the rules on masterwork items, and I have little pity for them. The books aren't hard to read. For a trait -- you get two at start, right? -- you have a weapon (admittedly mundane, but oh, well) you can use regardless of your class armor & weapon proficiencies. Not too shabby. But you can't enchant it? Cry me a river; there are starving goblins in Chelliax who won't EVER see a magic weapon, and would happily kill to get their hands on decent weaponry at all.
Really. If you're dead-set on a MAGIC weapon of that type, PICK A CLASS THAT GIVES YOU THE PROFICIENCY. Or spend a feat on it.
Don't try to upgrade a trait -- or a standard weapon.
|
|
But that isn't how it is written in the guide. And what about the raise dead loophole, it changes the condition from dead. Applies a condition, the 2 negative levels. Also, how is a raise dead less ongoing than masterwork transformation? I am arguing for clarity in the rules. Why not just ban the few spells that need banning (permanency and animate dead should cover it)? What we have now is a rather kludgey set of rules that don't exactly make sense.Rather agreed on just removing heirloom weapon. Pre errata, it wasn't all that bad (though the extra +1 to hit needed to go). However, now? It is nothing more than a trap option trait, and it does a disservice to players to leave it in. Although the concept of all spells going away at the end of a scenario annoys me....why don't all players drop dead as the healing they received goes *poof*?This argument goes round and round and round, and its the same 3 people, every time, that come up with the same argument, every time.
Permanent or immediate spell effects end at the end of a session.
Spells that change a condition don't end, because the spell is not ongoing after the end of a session.
I'm not disagreeing that its cludgy.
Raise Dead removes the "dead" condition. Does not end, you are still alive.
Blindness/Deafness imposes a condition. Does not end, you can't see or hear.
Raise Dead imposes two negative levels. Does not end, you will still have two negative levels.
Take hit point damage from a spell or sword. Does not end. You will still be damaged at the end of a scenario (unless you get it taken care of). NOTE: It is assumed you heal up naturally between scenarios.
Get healed before the end of a scenario. It removes damage. Does not end.
You do enough damage to kill an NPC. You have imposed death on them. Does not end.
Two entirely different situations.
|
|
Situation 1: A player character approaches an NPC wizard and asks him to cast continual flame on the end of a torch. The NPC charges (Caster level × spell level × 10 gp) = 5 x 3 x 10 = 150 gold pieces and hands over a stick with the spell.
Situation 2 A player character approaches an NPC wizard and asks for an everburning torch, which the rulebook defines as an"otherwise normal torch [with] a continual flame spell cast on it."
It may be semantics Chris. But both RAW and RAI for both the game and the PFS Guide would not make you have to repurchase an Ioun Torch every session.
One is an active spell being cast by PC or NPC. That spell would not last from scenario to scenario.
The other is an actual item purchasable from the book.
They may amount to the same thing. But the difference is, you aren't purchasing spellcasting services. You are purchasing an item. Therefore it lasts.