
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |

No.
May I ask why you think it would be? Just curious if we need to request Mike to make the Guide more clearer on the subject.
+1 armor is always available, glamor isn't a plus equivalent upgrade, it is a cost only upgrade, 2700 gp. So I was unsure whether the armor was always available or not.

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Dragnmoon wrote:+1 armor is always available, glamor isn't a plus equivalent upgrade, it is a cost only upgrade, 2700 gp. So I was unsure whether the armor was always available or not.No.
May I ask why you think it would be? Just curious if we need to request Mike to make the Guide more clearer on the subject.
I see what you are saying.
That said, the guide states just +1 armor is always available, Glamored +1 armor is not just +1 armor, so it is not always available.
Edit: Though like I said I see your point and I think it is a good candidate for Mike to look into making more clearer in the guide. To tell you the truth, even though I am confident my answer is correct based on my PFS knowledge, I could be wrong *shrugs* and the intent of the rule may allow what you are looking for.

![]() |
I agree with Dragnmoon that it's not always available, however it could easily be read either way.
Actually, it can't be "read either way"; the fact that it's not priced as a enhancement bonus has literally no bearing on whether or not it's "always available". By the logic being used to question this, if +1 glamered is "always available", then so is +1 benevolent, and +1 balanced, and +1 heavy fortification, and +1 anything.

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |

I agree with you, however I stand by the wording being ambigous since the item is still a +1 item.
+1 Adamantine full plate is ~18,000 gp and always available.
I'm just saying it's not about the cost of thing, I think it should be cost restricted, say... 3000 but it's not.
Again I believe it's not always available, I also believe it could be clearer.

![]() |
I agree with you, however I stand by the wording being ambigous since the item is still a +1 item.
+1 Adamantine full plate is ~18,000 gp and always available.
I'm just saying it's not about the cost of thing, I think it should be cost restricted, say... 3000 but it's not.
Again I believe it's not always available, I also believe it could be clearer.
Except that it's not "+1 armor", it's "+1 glamered armor", so no, it's not ambiguous when you consider the whole item, and not just one component. I honestly cannot see this legitimately being confused by someone who actually sits down and reads the GtPFSOP.
The OP somehow thought that the fact that since glamered isn't priced as a bonus somehow meant it "didn't count"; being priced as a +2 bonus isn't the line, and there's nothing that remotely insinuates that. +1 glamered armor does NOT count as +1 armor, any more than +1 heavy fortification armor does (remember, abilities priced as a bonus aren't actually bonuses, so even with that armor being priced as +6, it's still "+1 armor" just as much as the glamered armor).

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |

You're right it's 100% clear and impossible for anyone to misinterpret.
I haven't possibly been asked that same question 10+ times....
Your argument that it doesn't work is clear, concise and accurate.
Your argument that it can't be misinterpreted and is perfectly clear is blatantly proven wrong by real world occurrences.
Nothing you type can change the fact that people have asked the question, and some people read it as "all +1 items are legal" instead of "all items with no more than a +1 enhancement are legal"

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |

Whereas, it should be read as "Adding the +1 enhancement bonus to armor, shields and weapons is always available."
Although that probably opens another can of worms, since it would open up the ability to make dragonhide armor and firearms +1 without needing more Fame (or 2 PP, as the case depends) than needed to buy the basic item.

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |

You're right it's 100% clear and impossible for anyone to misinterpret.
I haven't possibly been asked that same question 10+ times....
Your argument that it doesn't work is clear, concise and accurate.
Your argument that it can't be misinterpreted and is perfectly clear is blatantly proven wrong by real world occurrences.
Nothing you type can change the fact that people have asked the question, and some people read it as "all +1 items are legal" instead of "all items with no more than a +1 enhancement are legal"
A +1 Flaming Longsword is not a +1 Item. Its a +1 Flaming item.
There is no ambiguity in this.
If people want to read ambiguity into this, they are doing one of two things:
Willful Ignorance about how the rules of the game works - or -
They are new to the system and don't understand how the game works.
In either case, you:
Slap the Willful Ignorant upside the head and say, "Dude, seriously?"
- or -
Explain nicely to the newby how the game system works.
Regardless why the question is being asked, there is no ambiguity in this.
The guide is already over 50 pages, lets not add another 50 in useless and redundant re-explanation just so that people can't choose to be willfully ignorant.
At some point we have to draw a line in the sand... if people choose to not understand the game rules for the sake of power gaming, that isn't the fault of the Guide.

![]() |
Andrew, Jiggy, that's precisely what I was getting at. When I said "actually read" the Guide, I didn't just mean just reading the words; I meant actually reading them for comprehension.
In my experience, people who have to have the simple things explained to them haven't actually spent the time to read the entirety of the section in question, or are seeking some loophole to get what they want before they should have access to it. No amount of extra words is going to make EITHER group stop asking these questions.

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |

If people want to read ambiguity into this, they are doing one of two things:
Willful Ignorance about how the rules of the game works - or -
They are new to the system and don't understand how the game works.
There is a 3rd category you are omitting: Difference of opinion.
We've all been wrong at one time or another. Sometimes you interpret the rules in a different way from someone else at the table, and sometimes they are the ones who are right. That's the problem with not only the English language in general, but also anything written. How many different sects of Christianity are there? They all believe their interpretation of the Bible is correct, but they can't all be right. It's no different with the rules to Pathfinder. I doubt anyone in this thread agrees 100% with anyone else about every rule ever made.

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |

Andrew Christian wrote:If people want to read ambiguity into this, they are doing one of two things:
Willful Ignorance about how the rules of the game works - or -
They are new to the system and don't understand how the game works.There is a 3rd category you are omitting: Difference of opinion.
We've all been wrong at one time or another. Sometimes you interpret the rules in a different way from someone else at the table, and sometimes they are the ones who are right. That's the problem with not only the English language in general, but also anything written. How many different sects of Christianity are there? They all believe their interpretation of the Bible is correct, but they can't all be right. It's no different with the rules to Pathfinder. I doubt anyone in this thread agrees 100% with anyone else about every rule ever made.
I know it sounds arrogant... but...
In this instance, there is no ambiguity, so difference of Opinion from an experienced player is simply willful ignorance.
a +1 Item is exactly that.
Anything else is not a +1 Item. It is a +1 Item with extras.
Since the Guide says +1 Item, not +1 Item with extras, then there really is no other way to read it or interpret it.
Lets not confuse the issue here please, by suggesting that there is another valid interpretation of the very specific rule about +1 weapons and armor being considered always available.
There isn't another valid interpretation, and to suggest otherwise is allowing for willful ignorance.

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |

Oh, no, as I already stated above, +1 glamored full plate is not always available. I wasn't arguing that. I was just adding that, in general, there are three categories that players may fall in, not just the two you mentioned.
In general, I agree with you.
For this situation, I didn't mention the 3rd, because it didn't apply.

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |

In this case, I think Andrew was right. The guide is very specific in this case.
• +1 weapons (2,000 gp + 300 for the masterwork weapon
cost + item cost)
• +1 armor (1,000 gp + 150 for the masterwork armor cost
+ item cost)
• +1 shields (1,000 gp + 150 for the masterwork armor
cost + item cost)
It lists out the actual costs for what constitutes an always available weapon or armor.