|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A +1 dagger costs 2302.
A Dagger of Venom costs 8302.
The price difference between the two is 6000.Now that we know the price difference
You do not.
two smurf two is four.
three smurf three is ______
You cannot fill in the blank because smurf could be either times, or plus, or to the power of, or even some other function someone that passed math could name. That's the black box. You don't know if the price came about from multiplication, addition, a logarithmic progression, or an ad hoc evaluation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
AFAIK, the rules do not specify what celestial armor is made from. For all we know it's made from primordial ooze, or pure essence of good, or some other unobtainium.
As for the black box problem, clearly the crafting rules need some work.
|
|
Chess Pwn: No, thank you. I will post what I'd like. You aren't the boss of me! ;P
Look, all I am saying is that we have all been doing this in home games for years. Many of us for longer than Pathfinder has existed. I'm not even the only person to have brought this up to leadership so don't pretend like I am. As previously mentioned Alexander Augunas had already posted a method for accomplishing this that works fairly well. Him and John were talking about it here. It was, in fact, in response to Kalindlara stating, "I'd love the option to upgrade named items of that sort as well, for the record. ^_^"
So don't tell me to drop it. I didn't even start it. I'm simply continuing the same logic. The method that Alex posted is thus:
"You may upgrade the generic component of a named magic weapon, suit of armor, or shield, such as banded mail of luck. The "generic component" of a named magic item is another other non-named magic weapon, suit of armor, or shield that the named magic item references. For instance, the "generic component" of banded mail of luck is +3 banded mail. To determine the price that you must pay to upgrade a named item, you must determine the named item's price with the desired upgrades, then subtract the named item's price from its modified price and pay the difference.To determine the price of a named item with one or more desired upgrades, follow the following steps:
Step 1) Determine the value of the "named component" of the named magic item by subtracting the cost of the named item's generic component from its total price. For instance, to determine the value of the named component of a suit of banded mail of luck, subtract the price of a suit of +3 banded mail from the banded mail of luck's price. (18,400 gp – 9,400 gp = 9,000 gp)
Step 2) Determine the value of the generic component with the desired upgrades. For instance, if you want a suit of banded mail of luck with a +4 enhancement bonus, you would use the price of a suit of +4 banded mail for this purpose. (16,400 gp)
Step 3) Add the value of the named magic item's named component to the price of the desired upgrade to determine the named item's price with the desired upgrade. For instance, a suit of banded mail of luck with a +4 enhancement bonus would cost 25,400 gp. (16,400 gp for +4 banded mail, plus the 9,000 gp named component cost from Step 1)
Once you have determined the named item's modified price, you can use that modified price to determine the cost of upgrading a named item with the desired modifications.
That is exactly the method that every group that I have GM'd for and played in for the past 15+ years. I'm fairly certain that it is the same method that John et al use to price the upgraded Dagger of Venom that appears on a chronicle sheet. I'm sure it is the same method that other posters here use in their home games.
BNW: So, then you are in favor of ignoring the rules when there is no mechanical difference? I'm not trying to bait you into a certain answer here. But the rules for Mammoth Hide state, "Made of tattered mammoth hide and bone..." while Rhino Hide specifically states that it is "made from rhinoceros hide." And since the new FAQ entry only states that both items have to be "made of the same material" I definitely can see room for disagreement there.
I agree with you, by the way. I am just trying to avoid situations where someone could buy something and a future GM disagrees with whether the upgrade was possible and disallows the owning of an item based on their understanding of the rules. It seems like a very small amount of clarity that could potentially benefit a large number of people. My son actually has a character that currently has Rhino Hide and he would like to be able to upgrade it to Mammoth Hide. I wouldn't want him to do that and then have a future GM come along and cast doubt on whether his purchased upgrade was possible or if he had to sell his current armor to pay for entirely new Mammoth Hide.
Pathfinder Society Lead Developer
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Look, all I am saying is that we have all been doing this in home games for years. Many of us for longer than Pathfinder has existed. I'm not even the only person to have brought this up to leadership so don't pretend like I am. As previously mentioned Alexander Augunas had already posted a method for accomplishing this that works fairly well. Him and John were talking about it here. It was, in fact, in response to Kalindlara stating, "I'd love the option to upgrade named items of that sort as well, for the record. ^_^"
So don't tell me to drop it. I didn't even start it. I'm simply continuing the same logic.
You're right that you did not start the discussion. I have, however, provided my reasoning as to why the proposed methodology does not consistently and accurately address how special weapons and armor would need to be upgraded, and not having a consistent methodology severely undermines the likelihood of instituting such a policy in an organized play environment. What I'm reading in your counterpoint is that I'm wrong and that I should use the same methodology—"the same logic," as you put it—that I acknowledged and turned down before. Am I missing something?
|
|
BNW: So, then you are in favor of ignoring the rules when there is no mechanical difference? I'm not trying to bait you into a certain answer here.
Do not accuse me of ignoring rules (cheating) without refuting my point of view on the rules. As it stands you're not even engaging with anything i said, you went right to the accusations of cheating because i disagreed with a hypothetical alternative reading of the rules.
They are leather. The same thickness , weight, hardness, and hitpoints. There are not different columns for the different types of leather, as this is pathfinder, not a We B.C. Goblins game that would make such distinctions. What kind of creature your armor used to be before you bought it at armor mart is flavor text. Mithral vs steel, gold, bronze, or adamantium all have different stats, hit points, weight and cost that make them different materials and that make those differences count.
THAT is the difference, that is my honest best to interpret the rules, I am confident enough in my ruling that i would just do it, feel comfortable not asking every dm about it, and not sweat the exploratory surgery level of audit it would take to turn up what happened when I did it. As stated, if you want to break it right down to the species a wooly rhino meets the criteria of both armors.
If you want an official answer on that exact issue. (points up. is 1/4 pointer) it would set your mind at ease and be a good guideline for how persnickety we're supposed to be with that clause.
|
|
John, I think you already used that logic. Didn't you? How did you price the improved Dagger of Venom?
I'm not sure why I have to be saying that you are wrong just by agreeing with Alexander's method. You said others have pitched the concept to you several times. Was the first person who pitched the concept saying you were wrong? Was the second? I think it is a bit harsh to say I was saying you are wrong. Just because I was the supporting the concept that Alexander put forth doesn't mean I think you are wrong.
There are other issues being discussed here that are currently allowed in PFS. If you don't want to focus on this one thing, I don't blame you. I just want to give my support to the others who are saying they would like the option. If you are stuck in "no"ville on this one then probably best to move on to other issues anyway. Like the Rhino Hide -> Mammoth Hide thing. And the Celestial Armor being made of "celestial armor stuff" vs the metal you make Chainmail out of.
Still not sure I understand BNW's stance on this. He seems to believe that Celestial Armor and chainmail are made out of different materials which would mean there is no upgrade path yet rhino hide is close enough to mammoth hide. I guess that is why we cold use some clarity, though.
Contributor
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Regarding my earlier post: my posts can be a little vague on the difference between "it would be nice if this was allowed" versus "I think this is a good idea and should be allowed".
As with certain contentious issues under discussion elsewhere, any casual support on my part for a specific element or ruling should not be interpreted as active support or advocacy for that result.
|
|
I didn't accuse you of anything, BNW. I asked you a question.
You stated that you think that Celestial Armor is made out of "celestial armor stuff". Right? I assumed that meant that you didn't think that you could upgrade +3 Chainmail into it. Am I off base on that?
If I am not then I am having trouble reconciling your opinion on rhino hide being the same as mammoth hide.
Either way, like my initial post says, this thread needs to be updated to reflect the new upgrade paths. I just think that it should be cleared up before updated. Does anyone really disagree with that? Maybe I have lost track of what we are arguing about. I am in favor of clarity being given to the upgrade path discussed in the latest FAQ and this thread being updated with that information.
|
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's more "people might be interpreting my posts as support in unintended ways, let me clarify". I'm not abandoning a side, because I never meant to pick one.
My earlier post really was just a casual declaration of interest based on my desire to use certain specific items, not full-throated support for the policy's implementation. I tend to leave such decisions to those with greater expertise (and greater investment) than myself.
Once we see the Additional Resources update for the next couple of Player Companions, then we'll see if I feel motivated to speak up. ^_^
|
|
Hm. Count me interested as well.
Its not like I'm trying to force anyone's hand here either. Just voicing my support. In this thread I'm just trying to get a small clarification before having this thread updated with current information. Not even advocating for change, really. Just clarification and an update.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just because a single method may be utilized to determine the price of a single item (reverse engineering a Dagger of Venom and creating a unique +X Dagger of Venom, for example) does not mean that method is appropriate for all magical items.
That's what everyone here is trying to tell you, Lune. Sure, GMs have been reverse engineering magic items for years, across multiple game systems. Nobody here is disputing that.
But finding a single method that everyone agrees upon for every item in existence isn't something that's currently possible.
|
|
Creating anything that everyone agrees on isn't possible. I hardly see why that is relevant being that Paizo does their best to make things and make rulings that for balance's sake and as Paul Jackson pointed out in another thread I've lost a lot of popularity in, "To some extent, sure. But certainly not completely. Paizo itself has made many a change/FAQ because things were seen to be unbalanced. And there is near universal agreement that some options are too weak and some too powerful. Not universal, admittedly. But near."
In other words, it can be done. Will everyone like it or the method by which it is done? Most assuredly no. Does that matter? No, not really.
My point in saying that it has been done for years by probably everyone in the thread including John Compton himself when he set the price of the +X Dagger of Venom is to show that it CAN be done. And the method by which it was done was John's (and his team's) decision. It isn't even a single item. There are several. I have a character that has a Lesser Circlet of Persuasion. I can even upgrade that to a normal Circlet of Persuasion.
Now. I understand that John has said no. He has said no repeatedly to many different people who have all suggested the same thing. It isn't fair that just because I'm the next person in line to saying that I'm telling him he is "wrong" or that I am telling him what to do at all. I am simply asking (just as others have) that this be considered. And that I am also joining the masses of those who think "it would be nice if this was allowed".
Regarding the rest of my purpose for the visit to this thread (the other 4 points from my first post), would you like to share an opinion there? Do you think this thread should be updated with the new information? Or do you think it should be replaced? Are you in favor of any ambiguities being cleared up prior to either of those options?
|
|
I'm in favor of an updated thread. I created one myself two years after this one. It's a lot of tedious work that few people have time for. I won't likely find the time in the near future to do another one. If someone else can, I'm sure their efforts will be praised.
That aside, I feel you're still missing the point we're trying to hammer home. You don't seem to understand why John is saying "no". Just because there is a Lesser thing-a-ma-jig or a +X Geekslayer does not mean that everyone will be on board with (or even understand) how those prices came about, or that the existence of those two items means there is a universal upgrade path that accurately reflects every item's increase in power.
We have been given a handful of upgraded items. Those items went through extreme vetting to assure that their upgrades (and caps) wouldn't upset wealth by level. No PFS GM will take that amount of time or level of consideration when a player asks them if they can upgrade their [named item] into a [+X named item, greater].
It's not that we're saying "no" to a universal rule being published, it's that there isn't a universal rule that can be published.
|
|
Okay, so I have a slight bit of confusion here. I have a character with the Knight-Inheritor's Ring (RoP +1 and gives bless weapon/wartrain mount 1/day.) and I would like to get a better AC by improving it. If I read all of this, I cannot, and would need to purchase a +2 ring, and lose the ability to bless weapons, or wear both rings and have a redundant bonus.
|
It would cost the difference between the normal item and the upgrade.
There are many ways to obtain items through prestige or boons where you effectively receive them at a discount or free. What is most important is what item you have rather than what you paid for it.
I think there might be some restrictions on selling an item that was bought with prestige and then upgraded though.
|
|
Can Eyes of the Eagle be upgraded into Lens of Detection?
1. Same slot - check.
2. Same material - check, "crystal" vs "prism" seems close enough I think if we are allowing rhino hide to be the same as mammoth hide.
3. Same general shape - check, I think? I assume they are shaped about the same. There isn't a lot of text in the entries to tell. But the FAQ says "general" I think for a reason.
4. Has all of the abilities of the original item - check. ...mostly. Eyes of the Eagle have the added effect of if you remove one it stuns you for a round.
I'm fully on board with 1 and 2. Number 3 seems as close as you can get without going more specific than "general". Number 4 seems close enough to me but the stun bit might be enough for some to think it would ruin it all.
|
|
I already posted this further upthread on the last page but it is part of the PFS FAQ.
You may upgrade one weapon, armor, or wondrous item to another as long as the new item occupies the same slot, is made of the same material, has the same general shape, and has all of the abilities of the original item. For example, you can upgrade a +1 longsword into a +1 frost longsword or a cloak of resistance +1 into a cloak of resistance +2. You may also upgrade a magic weapon or armor into one of the named weapons or armors, such as upgrading a +1 banded mail into a banded mail of luck. As another example, you can upgrade a belt of incredible dexterity +2 into a belt of the weasel from Pathfinder RPG Ultimate Equipment , which grants a +2 enhancement bonus to Dexterity as well as other benefits.
To upgrade a magic item, pay the difference in price between the new item and the original item.
|
|
I moved my question over here.
Belt of Dexterity: "This belt has a large silver buckle, usually depicting the image of a tiger."
Belt of the Weasel: "This surprisingly soft belt has an absurdly large buckle, made even more absurd by the fact that it’s crafted in the shape of a smiling weasel’s face."
And if one extends the intention of the new rule take a look at the Monkey Belt: "This furry brown belt resembles the tail of a monkey." Oh, and it can give you a fricken tail.
All fairly different items but you clearly can make one into the other. So you see, it comes down to a level of granularity.
|
|
it is part of thePFS FAQ(better link)
Alright, so let's take a look:
You may upgrade one weapon, armor, or wondrous item to another as long as...
1) "the new item occupies the same slot"
2) "is made of the same material"
3) "has the same general shape"
4) "has all of the abilities of the original item"
Therefore I would conclude that you cannot upgrade Eyes of the Eagle into a Lens of Detection.
|
|
Oddly enough there seem to be two different items listed on Archives of Nethys.
"Lens of Detection" is as described by Nefreet.
"Lenses of Detection" do exactly the same, at the same price, but occupy the eyes slot.
But the PRD has Lens of Detection occupying the eyes slot, but with the magnifying glass physical description. This is a core rulebook item.
The PRD also has Lenses of Detection with the same cost, also in the eyes slot, described as being "circular prisms". This appears to be an Ultimate Equipment item.
Edit: I see this has been noted in the other thread already.
|
A scimitar is 15gp. Masterwork is 300. Enhancing it to +1 is 2,000. Adding keen is another 6,000.
So 15+300+2000+6000 = 8,315gp
If you wanted it to be made of a different material, then you would either need to sell your existing masterwork scimitar, or just purchase a second one. The cost will then depend on the material. It can get expensive. A +1 keen cold iron scimitar, for example, would cost:
15+15 (double the cost for cold iron) + 300 + 2000 (extra cost for enhancing cold iron) + 2000 (make it +1) + 6000 (make it keen) = 13,330gp
You can upgrade it in stages, but you can't change the base material. So a masterwork scimitar can become a +1 scimitar for an additional 2,000gp. A +1 scimitar can become +1 keen for an additional 6,000gp. Total cost will be the same (8,315gp). It cannot, however, became a cold iron scimitar. It would have to start out that way.
|
|
At the very least, THIS FAQ still applies. It was actually opened up farther than when this thread was created.
I have read the FAQ and the explanation but still I don't understand one point:
If there is a specific magic weapon...like Assassin's Dagger.
...which is a dagger +2 as base...
...wouldn't be possible to make it a longsword?
Thanks,
Skarm
|
|
You can’t make a longsword with the same abilities as an Assassin’s Blade. The Assassin’s Blade has a custom ability to allow certain classes to get extra sneak attacks. That’s not an ability that can be added to a different weapon. The “+2 as base” is just an observation that it is priced equal to a +2 weapon. It is actually a +1 dagger with the custom ability text.
You can upgrade a +1 dagger to be an Assassin’s Blade, because it’s the same base weapon and an Assassin’s Blade has all of the same abilities. A +1 longsword is not the same base weapon as an Assassin’s Blade, so it can’t be upgraded to one.