|
We had a similar discussion in the "How to upgrade your Gear in PFS" thread a while back.
The two issues were the same: is +1 Dragonhide, or a +1 Gun, always available?
Gunslingers start with a gun, and you can buy Dragonhide with PP. Can either be upgraded to +1 regardless of fame? Both are examples of how someone can obtain an item that is not normally always available. The question after that is, does the "+1 items are always available" rule trump the "these items are never always available" rule.
I'm curious to see how it all turns out.
No character may purchase a firearm unless she possesses the Gunsmithing feat and firearms are never considered Always Available; a character must possess enough Fame to purchase any firearm not found on a Chronicle sheet or granted by a class feature.
This says nothing about enchanting the weapon, just purchasing the weapon.
So if he has enough fame to get the MW weapon, and +1 weapons are always available. Then he can get it. Because you can buy a MW weapon and then go to the magic user to get it enchanted.
So your saying that if you cant buy the +1 item, then you cant upgrade the item?
What if you cant buy a +1 Greatsword, then can you upgrade it? You say no to that.
The Not Always Availble rule only means that you have to have the Fame to buy it. So a brand new lvl 2 gunslinger can not buy a pepper box.
Because he does not have the fame.
You can always upgrade any MW item to a +1, becauce that is always availble.
If you cant upgrade a MW item to a +1, Please show me the rule for that.
I see that the +1 upgrades is not under the always available, but the +1 weapon is. That means that you can still upgrade without having the fame to do so.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16
|
I see that the +1 upgrades is not under the always available, but the +1 weapon is. That means that you can still upgrade without having the fame to do so.
Firearms are never always available regardless if they are mundane or +1.
The general rule of "+1 items are always available" does not trump the specific rule for firearms. If it did, the general rule "all mundane items are always available" would also trump the specific rule for firearms and what would be the point of even having the specific rule then?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I see that the +1 upgrades is not under the always available, but the +1 weapon is. That means that you can still upgrade without having the fame to do so.
Actually, upgrading to +1 is specifically allowed in the Guide ("a masterwork item can always be upgraded to a +1 item"), and that is where the confusion has always stemmed from. Since the only two items that I can think of are firearms and dragonhide armors, I'd imagine that an addition to the Guide or FAQ would be easy to do.
|
|
You are misquoting the guide. The entire sentence reads:
"For ease of play in Pathfinder Society, a masterwork item
can always be upgraded to a +1 item without paying for
the masterwork cost again."
That is way different than saying a masterwork item can always be upgraded to a +1 item. If you read the entire sentence it does not appear to suggest that you can always upgrade an item to +1, it merely says you upgrade it without paying the masterwork cost again to buy a new item.
If I were to interpret it the way you have, then this rule would mean that I never have to meet the fame requirements to upgrade an item:
This rule also applies to upgrading from a +1 item to
a +2 item and so on"
|
What's frustrating is when players try to throw "RAW" in the face of the GM's and VO's to try and get every ounce of advantage they can, when they really don't need to.Yes, but what's that got to do with this conversation?
Everything. Read it and you'll see folks throwing out "RAW" to try to justify why they can get something before they should be able to get something.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
And there's no possible explanation for why someone would say that "RAW" lets them do something, except to "throw it in the face of the GM's and VO's to try and get every ounce of advantage they can"? It couldn' be that they genuinely misunderstand? Or if they are trying to squeeze something out of it, it's not an option that they might still conduct themselves like adults rather than "throw it in GMs' faces"?
|
|
And there's no possible explanation for why someone would say that "RAW" lets them do something, except to "throw it in the face of the GM's and VO's to try and get every ounce of advantage they can"? It couldn' be that they genuinely misunderstand? Or if they are trying to squeeze something out of it, it's not an option that they might still conduct themselves like adults rather than "throw it in GMs' faces"?
You can of course read everything I write with a sense of impending hyperbole if you wish.
|
|
You can of course read everything I write with a sense of impending hyperbole if you wish.It's certainly possible that I'm misreading you. What would be the correct way to interpret your statement that has to do with this thread?
That I'm making a general comment about how "RAW" gets thrown around alot about why something can be done despite all precedence and common sense to the contrary, and that it frustrates me, especially since I see a few comments in this thread headed in that direction.
But for some reason you keep reading into what I write and seem to take it personally (or take it personally for others who have yet to do so) as though I'm calling out someone specific and that I'm saying "all players are loophole hungry cheaters." or something. Which of course didn't come out of my mouth or from my fingertips.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
That I'm making a general comment about how "RAW" gets thrown around alot about why something can be done despite all precedence and common sense to the contrary, and that it frustrates me, especially since I see a few comments in this thread headed in that direction.
But for some reason you keep reading into what I write and seem to take it personally (or take it personally for others who have yet to do so) as though I'm calling out someone specific and that I'm saying "all players are loophole hungry cheaters." or something. Which of course didn't come out of my mouth or from my fingertips.
It's not so much that I think you're saying that ALL players do XYZ, but when you make a general statement about people who do X having motive/intent Y, and you make that comment in a thread in which people are currently doing X, it does really come across sounding like you're ascribing Y to the people in the thread you're posting in.
For comparison, if there was a thread where people were talking about things a GM could do to provide more fun/challenge to PCs, and I were to make a general comment about how "fun" gets thrown around a lot about why GMs can do something despite all rules and clarifications to the contrary, and that it frustrates me... Well, I don't think it would be unreasonable for folks to think that I was attributing that behavior to the GMs in that thread.
When someone makes a comment about people who do a given thing, in a thread where people are doing that thing, the comment tends to come across as being about those people.
|
|
That I'm making a general comment about how "RAW" gets thrown around alot about why something can be done despite all precedence and common sense to the contrary, and that it frustrates me, especially since I see a few comments in this thread headed in that direction.
But for some reason you keep reading into what I write and seem to take it personally (or take it personally for others who have yet to do so) as though I'm calling out someone specific and that I'm saying "all players are loophole hungry cheaters." or something. Which of course didn't come out of my mouth or from my fingertips.
It's not so much that I think you're saying that ALL players do XYZ, but when you make a general statement about people who do X having motive/intent Y, and you make that comment in a thread in which people are currently doing X, it does really come across sounding like you're ascribing Y to the people in the thread you're posting in.
For comparison, if there was a thread where people were talking about things a GM could do to provide more fun/challenge to PCs, and I were to make a general comment about how "fun" gets thrown around a lot about why GMs can do something despite all rules and clarifications to the contrary, and that it frustrates me... Well, I don't think it would be unreasonable for folks to think that I was attributing that behavior to the GMs in that thread.
When someone makes a comment about people who do a given thing, in a thread where people are doing that thing, the comment tends to come across as being about those people.
Yes, when general comments are made, people can take them personally if they want to.
I generally find that if they do take them personally, its either that they are way oversensitive, or they feel guilty.
It is your choice to take it personally or not.
But for the future, unless I call out someone specifically, lets just say that I'm making a general statement that doesn't apply to anyone specific.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
Bear in mind that people want to go with RAW over RAI for reasons other than gaming the system. In a huge player base like we have here, consistancy is a very important factor and RAW is always more consistent the RAI.There's also the fact that RAW can be proven, and RAI often cannot.
Which is one of the reasons why it is more consistent.
|
|
Bear in mind that people want to go with RAW over RAI for reasons other than gaming the system. In a huge player base like we have here, consistancy is a very important factor and RAW is always more consistent the RAI.There's also the fact that RAW can be proven, and RAI often cannot.
Oh, I agree in 99% of all cases, RAW is correct. I'm sure players get tired of me throwing RAW at them when they want to build their character using something not covered in the Rules (i.e. a Ram mount for their Paladin).
However, there is a small subset of players who enjoy exploiting every possible loophole they can find to eke every last advantage for uber-optimization. And its eternally frustrating when they throw "but RAW doesn't say I can't destroy every scenario solo by taking this uber-combo that is at best ambiguous in its legality."
I guess it's just me but I reading the Not Always Available rule only means that you have to have fame to get that certain item. Not just the item being "not always available."
Since I'm a person that goes by RAW, can someone point me to the exact rule for not always available.
Because the way i'm seeing it. You need the fame to buy the gun or a MW version of it. You dont need the fame to upgrade it to a +1, but you still need the fame to upgrade it to a +2. That is what I'm reading from the PFS Guide.
|
|
Fame requirements adhere to the entirety of the item.
Upgrades are called upgrades, only because you pay for the difference in cost between the item you have, and the item you end up with. You could even say its the exact same item, and the Wizard is literally just upgrading it.
But you aren't strictly paying for just an upgrade. That's just common vernacular.
What is actually happening, is you are paying for the new item minus the cost of the old item.
And the new item adheres to the same Fame requirements as the old item.
So if a Gun is not always available, its +1 version is also not always available.
I'm sorry but I dont see it that way. Because that will make the guns way under the enchantment curve. Why would anyone want to make a gunslinger and wait a couple levels to up grade it, wile anyother weapon is so much easier to upgrade?
But does that mean that affects all weapons? Example: a +1 long sword is 2315gp. In order to get a +2 you will need a Fame of at least 10315 in order to get it and not 8000 fame?
|
|
how do you get 10315?
The Fame requirement is the total cost of the weapon. A +2 Longsword is not 10315gp. It is 8315gp. So you need 27 Fame to upgrade a weapon to +2.
And frankly it doesn't matter how you see it. It only matters how the GM sees it who signs off on your purchases.
Expect table variation.
|
|
So let me get this straight. You believe:
Guns are not always available
Masterwork guns are not always available
+2 Guns are not always available
+1 Guns are always available
How do you rationalize that line of thinking?
A +2 longsword is 8315 Gold. Your fame must be high enough for total price of the upgraded item.
Beyond the gear noted above, your character is restricted
to purchasing additional items from his accumulated
Chronicle sheets, or by capitalizing on his fame within
his faction. Weapons, armor, equipment, magic items and
so on that are outside of these lists are not available for
purchase at any time.
And then there's this:
No character may purchase a firearm unless she possesses the Gunsmithing feat and firearms are never considered Always Available; or granted by a class feature.
Never means never. There is no way you can possibly manipulate the quoted rules to allow you to upgrade a firearm without having the required fame score.
A character's Fame score determines the maximum gp value of any items she can purchas from her faction, as detailed in Table 5-3 below.
I am wrong about this whole problem. This sentince from the guide says that you have to have the fame for the +1 pepperbox in order to buy it or upgrade it. So in order to get any item that is Not always availble you will have to caculate the total cost so see if you can upgrade it or buy it.
Is this correct?
@Robert-I was not under the impression that the total gold value of the item has to be under the fame limit.
@robert-I know those to quotes, You were just confusing me because that rule says you have to get the fame to purchase the gun but there is no rules that says anything about upgrading the gun. But I did find something on PG26 of the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play that you have to have the Fame for the Total Gold Value of that item. Read my previious post.
|
|
There is a loophole I believe they specifically left in to encourage upgrading the the starting weapon, instead of getting the more powerful firearms or a second weapon
character must possess enough Fame to purchase any firearm not found on a Chronicle sheet or granted by a class feature
The starting weapon of a gunslinger does not fall under the fame requirements therefore it can be upgrade to a +1 weapon not depending on your fame.
The idea of the rule was to slow down Gunslingers from getting an exuberant amount of attacks with duel firearms/Dual barrel or a mixture of the two at low levels, and not to handicap them from lack of a magic weapon.
So let me get this straight. You believe:
Guns are not always available
Masterwork guns are not always available
+2 Guns are not always available
+1 Guns are always available
I believed once you got enought fame to buy the gun, then you can get the +1 enchantment on it.
|
|
There is a loophole I believe they specifically left in to encourage upgrading the the starting weapon, instead of getting the more powerful firearms or a second weapon
character must possess enough Fame to purchase any firearm not found on a Chronicle sheet or granted by a class featureThe starting weapon of a gunslinger does not fall under the fame requirements therefore it can be upgrade to a +1 weapon not depending on your fame.
The idea of the rule was to slow down Gunslingers from getting an exuberant amount of attacks with duel firearms/Dual barrel or a mixture of the two at low levels, and not to handicap them from lack of a magic weapon.
That is so it doesn't block you from taking advantage of the gunsmithing feat.
Special: If you are a gunslinger, this feat grants the following additional benefit. You can use this feat to repair and restore your initial, battered weapon. It costs 300 gp and 1 day of work to upgrade it to a masterwork firearm of its type.
The situation at hand is about a gunslinger who used prestige to buy a firearm different than the one he started with, so he is required to meet the minimum fame to upgrade it.
|
|
So, to clarify:
Gunslingers, even on their firearm granted by their class feature, cannot upgrade any firearm at all to +1 until they have enough Fame to cover the whole price of the weapon?
And does the RAW value of said beginner weapon being 22 gp, +300 gp when repaired/masterworked, affect the final Fame needed (value: 2322 gp), or is that Fame based off the price of a "virgin" gun of the same type as the initial weapon?
And is there a reason, then, that Gunslingers are specifically being targetted as having to wait for a +1 weapon significantly longer than any other class? The only other weapon even coming close to this, and it does not include any sort of Fame limit to be made +1, is a Str-modded Composite Longbow.
|
|
Ok, just to clear up the uncertainty that appears to have developed.
- Gunslingers can upgrade their starting firearm to a masterwork weapon through the gunsmithing feat without meeting the fame requirement
- Gunslingers cannot upgrade a different firearm than they started with to a masterwork or +1 weapon unless they meet the fame requirement
This thread isn't about the gunslinger starting firearm, it is about a firearm the gunslinger bought with prestige points. You must meet the fame requirement for any firearm other than the one you start with as a gunslinger. This rule is not targetting gunslingers unfairly, in fact quite the contrary as it exempts gunslingers' starting firearm from the rule. The rule is there to prevent non-gunslingers from aquiring firearms without taking the gunsmithing feat. If an archer had a choice between a musket and a longbow he would probably pick the musket, or a Wizard could take a pistol as their arcane bond.
Gunslingers, even on their firearm granted by their class feature, cannot upgrade any firearm at all to +1 until they have enough Fame to cover the whole price of the weapon?
Yes. That is the price of getting a free weapon that would cost any other class 1000GP or more.
And does the RAW value of said beginner weapon being 22 gp, +300 gp when repaired/masterworked, affect the final Fame needed (value: 2322 gp), or is that Fame based off the price of a "virgin" gun of the same type as the initial weapon?
You ignore the price of the battered weapon. Once you repair it, it becomes a masterwork firearm and is worth:
Pistol - 1300 GP
Blunderbuss - 2300 GP
Musket - 1800 GP
Add +2000 GP to that value and that is the price that your fame must allow you to buy in order to make it +1.
|
|
@Nefreet: Agreed.
@Robert: Unclear.
I do not disagree with either of your statements, but it is decidedly unclear as to whether Fame limits apply to a gunslinger's initial/starting weapon as to making it a +1 after they spend the 300 gp to "repair" it and make it masterwork.
And you are confusing, in many, many ways, the difference between the Gunsmithing requirement to buy any firearm, and the "even mundane firearms require the requisite Fame to purchase" rules.
As it currently appears to stand, a non-firearm, no matter what material it is, as long as the material is Always Available, can be made a +1, no matter what the owner's Fame score is at.
So, a +1 pistol, at 3300 gp, requires a Fame score of 18 to upgrade, for the initial firearm.
On the other hand, a +1 Adamantine Greatsword, with a purchase price of 5350 gp, requires 0 Fame to purchase.
Oddly enough, that same 18 Fame would allow for the purchase of that +1 Adamantine Greatsword, if it required meeting thwe Fame limitations for purchase...
Shrug. YMMV, but it seems unbalancing to me to require only one class to have to meet Fame limitations to purchase a plain vanilla +1 version of their primary weapon, no matter what.
|
|
bzzzt... live... bzzzztttt
Necro complete...
So, one point here, the Boon is granted on a chronicle sheet, chronicle sheet items are not subject to fame. As long as he paid prestige to activate it, fame levels for enchant shouldn't come up. Otherwise upgrading gear sticky make it clear item total is what fame you are checking for, IMO.