1. can I use Craft skill to upgrade normal item to a masterwork item
2. canI use Craft skill to upgrade the strenght bonus of a composite longbow (from +3 to a +4 for example)?
No. You can only make something masterwork at the time of its creation.
Not according to the rules.
You can use, or have a caster use, the spell "Masterwork Transformation" to turn your normal bow into a masterwork one.
I don't know of any way to upgrade the strength bonus after creation. You can add the "adaptive" condition to the bow, but that's a costly magical effect.
No. You can only make something masterwork at the time of its creation.
I was certain that this was so, but now i cannot find any reference in the rules for that. Can you point me towards it?
I know about the adaptive quality, not what I'm looking for here.
Not true. The spell 'Masterwork Transformation' is designed specifically to turn regular items into their masterwork equivalents. The question of 'upgrading' the bow into mighty is trickier - I'd allow it with an appropriate Craft Bows check (DC 15 + (2 x Str rating)), and a material cost of (difference in the price between Longbow and Mighty Longbow)/3 in materials.
**edit** and that's what I get for not previewing, heh.
A masterwork weapon is a finely crafted version of a normal weapon. Wielding it provides a +1 enhancement bonus on attack rolls. You can't add the masterwork quality to a weapon after it is created; it must be crafted as a masterwork weapon (see the Craft skill).
A masterwork weapon is a finely crafted version of a normal weapon. Wielding it provides a +1 enhancement bonus on attack rolls. You can't add the masterwork quality to a weapon after it is created; it must be crafted as a masterwork weapon (see the Craft skill).Here.
Thanks. That was what I was looking for. I knew it existed, just not where. Things like this make me hate that PF is copy/paste from 3.5
Ok, for upgradeing composite bows, there seems to be no rule either way, that was also what I'm looking for.
If there is no rule that says how to upgrade your composite bow, that means there is no rule that allows it.
That's how "rules" work.
If you and your GM want to allow this, that goes into "house rule" territory.
Hm, makes sense. OK, thanks.
There are rules - or at least guidelines - that can be easily interpretedto allow you to alter and improve items.
The Craft skill allows the creation and repair of items, and common sense implies that alteration of items would fall into this realm as well. You would simply take the rules for creating or repairing an item, determine the final cost of the item after all improvements, subtract what you already paid for the item, and then make the requisite rolls until you've 'made' the item.
In this case, you'd need Craft (Bows).
For example: You have a masterwork composite longbow with a +0 STR bonus. You want to modify it to provide a +3 STR bonus. The total cost of a masterwork composite longbow with +3 STR bonus is 700g (100g for the bow, 300g for the STR bonus, and 300g for the masterwork quality). You've already paid 400g, so to alter the bow to add the STR bonus you'd 'owe' 300g, but you only pay 1\3 of that in raw material costs.
Convert the original cost in gold to silver and you need 3000 total silver in crafting 'time'. The DC for creating a composite longbow with a high STR rating is 15 + (2xSTR bonus), so your craft checks would be at a DC of 21.
Xaratherus, this is the "rules" forum, not the "common sense" forum.
Whether your approach is reasonable or not, it is not supported by the rules as written. And that means it's a house rule, not a "rule" rule.
Consider this. The difference between a +0 and a +3 longbow could well be due to the material used to create the bow. For example, Odysseus's bow in "The Odyssey" was made of horn, not wood. That was where it's great strength came from.
To assert that you can just "mend" or "modify" a bow to make it stronger is simply that, an assertion. Not a rule.
A number of the designers have also implied that RAW without common sense isn't actually RAW. The "rules as written" have no meaning until interpreted by someone. That job falls to the GM.
In this case, I believe that the description of the Craft text is sufficient to say that the rules would allow you to modify a weapon using that same skill. If you feel that falls outside the grounds of something that can be mentioned on the rules forum, then feel free to report my posts.
As to your mention of materials, that's actually addressed by the fact that you have to pay the difference between the original weapon and the modified one, and (in the case of a compound bow) is possible without rebuilding the weapon from the ground up: A compound bow's draw weight (which provides the variable force of the bow) comes primarily from its cams and limbs, which are generally made to be replaced.
Xarath, what you believe is exactly that, what you believe. As in every field of endeavor, one person's "common sense" is another person's "ridiculous assertion."
I don't care if you suggest things beyond the rules, but when you assert that you are implementing the rules when you are asserting your opinion, I may or may not point it out depending on my mood. Today I felt like it. Tomorrow I may not.
Believe me, I've been given the same treatment in this forum myself, so I know what it feels like. :)
Still, this remains the rules forum and you are asserting opinion, not rules. And your opinion is easily challenged, as I did above, by pointing out that the strength of a bow's pull could be dependent on design and construction choices that were made when the bow was made. You feel otherwise. I'd wager neither of us are experts in the construction of bows.
Xarath, what you believe is exactly that, what you believe. As in every field of endeavor, one person's "common sense" is another person's "ridiculous assertion."
I don't care if you suggest things beyond the rules, but when you assert that you are implementing the rules when you are asserting your opinion, I may or may not point it out depending on my mood. Today I felt like it. Tomorrow I may not.
Believe me, I've been given the same treatment in this forum myself, so I know what it feels like. :)
Still, this remains the rules forum and you are asserting opinion, not rules. And your opinion is easily challenged, as I did above, by pointing out that the strength of a bow's pull could be dependent on design and construction choices that were made when the bow was made. You feel otherwise. I'd wager neither of us are experts in the construction of bows.
Not an expert, no. But I have actually built them (compound and recurve). My father owned an archery store for years where he built and customized bows, and I assisted and did a number of the modifications and rebuilds myself (mostly on compounds).
A compound bow's strength relies primarily on the configuration of its cams and limbs. The cams (or eccentric wheels, as they're technically known) act as flywheels to greatly magnify the force with which the arrow is fired. The limbs must be able to flex enough to support and deliver that tension. The riser does have to be strong enough to hold the limbs steady but has far less to do with the force a compound bow can deliver.
Since these are all separate components with a compound bow, they can generally be replaced and swapped as needed. An archer using a compound bow can construct new limbs and\or cams and then just attach them to the riser.
Just as a final note, if you take issue with the idea of the 'common sense' that I mention, then I'll again just point out that I'm following the suggestions of the designers. With that, I'm off to my Wrath of the Righteous game for the night.
Xarath, what you believe is exactly that, what you believe. As in every field of endeavor, one person's "common sense" is another person's "ridiculous assertion."
I don't care if you suggest things beyond the rules, but when you assert that you are implementing the rules when you are asserting your opinion, I may or may not point it out depending on my mood. Today I felt like it. Tomorrow I may not.
Believe me, I've been given the same treatment in this forum myself, so I know what it feels like. :)
Still, this remains the rules forum and you are asserting opinion, not rules. And your opinion is easily challenged, as I did above, by pointing out that the strength of a bow's pull could be dependent on design and construction choices that were made when the bow was made. You feel otherwise. I'd wager neither of us are experts in the construction of bows.
Not an expert, no. But I have actually built them (compound and recurve). My father owned an archery store for years where he built and customized bows, and I assisted and did a number of the modifications and rebuilds myself (mostly on compounds).
** spoiler omitted **...
The bow in question is a COMPOSITE bow not a COMPOUND bow. It is made of multiple materials laminated and glued together, and does not use cams and adjustable arms. The compound bow was patented in 1969, invented in 1966.
|
Beaten by Vod, but the point is the same. A Compound bow is designed in such a way that it can be easily modified. To modify a Composite bow to have increased pull, you'd essentially have to remake it, since it's only built to a certain standard, with no "moving parts" to modify. You'd have the same trouble increasing the pull on a straight bow.
Personally, I'm in the camp of modifications being a common-sense thing for Craft skills. Certain ones don't work (making something Masterwork after the fact, modifying bows or other weapons in ways that change their function), while certain others might (adding a lock to a spellbook, combining a set of manacles and a set of fetters, adding a compartment for a potion vial to the back of a shield).
jfighter, I am too, and that's generally how I GM. But I recognize that when I do so, I'm putting my own expectations and worldview into the game and I let the players know that it's my own ruling, not something I think is a straight PF rule.
Just as Xaratherus does, I apply "common sense" to the game, and I would bet 80$ or more of the time our "common sense" would match. But the rest of the time our rulings would diverge, as they do here.
Which is fine, that's one thing that gives the game flavor in my opinion. But that's because it's an interpretation, not a ruling.
|
A bow's strength rating is determined at the time of creation, the full text for a compound longbow says:
You need at least two hands to use a bow, regardless of its size. You can use a composite longbow while mounted. All composite bows are made with a particular strength rating (that is, each requires a minimum Strength modifier to use it with proficiency). If your Strength modifier is less than the strength rating of the composite bow, you can't effectively use it, so you take a –2 penalty on attacks with it. The default composite longbow requires a Strength modifier of +0 or higher to use with proficiency. A composite longbow can be made with a high strength rating to take advantage of an above-average Strength score; this feature allows you to add your Strength modifier on damage rolls, up to the maximum bonus indicated for the bow. Each point of Strength bonus granted by the bow adds 100 gp to its cost. If you have a negative modifier due to low Strength, apply it to damage rolls when you use a composite longbow. A composite longbow fires arrows.
For the purposes of Weapon Proficiency and similar feats, a composite longbow is treated as if it were a longbow.
It specifically calls out that a bow is "made" or in my words, "created" with a specific strength rating. The strength rating becomes part of the identity of the bow.
Not making an argument based on RAW but I don't see the issue with increasing the pull strength of composite bow.
The bows are made by laminating layers of wood, horn and sinew and gluing the result together. If I wanted to increase the pull I'd glue on another layer of horn on the inside and another of sinew on the outside curve of the bow.
You could also decrease the pull strength by sanding away material.
That being said, if the rules say you can't do it then you can't. Unless you house rule that you can.
Not making an argument based on RAW but I don't see the issue with increasing the pull strength of composite bow.
The bows are made by laminating layers of wood, horn and sinew and gluing the result together. If I wanted to increase the pull I'd glue on another layer of horn on the inside and another of sinew on the outside curve of the bow.
You could also decrease the pull strength by sanding away material.
That being said, if the rules say you can't do it then you can't. Unless you house rule that you can.
The nature of rules is not that they have to outline and define what you CAN'T do. That is an infinite set that could never be satisfied. Rules describe what you CAN do.
Perhaps you can just slap some new laminated layers on a bow and make it pull harder. I suspect that might impact some of the other properties of the bow though, and at some point it would become more reasonable to just make a new bow instead of trying to re-design the bow after the fact.
The nature of rules is not that they have to outline and define what you CAN'T do. That is an infinite set that could never be satisfied. Rules describe what you CAN do.
Perhaps you can just slap some new laminated layers on a bow and make it pull harder. I suspect that might impact some of the other properties of the bow though, and at some point it would become more reasonable to just make a new bow instead of trying to re-design the bow after the fact.
Yes and yes.
To your first point I fully agree. However this is the thread of the rules lawyers. Not that being a rule lawyer is necessarily a bad thing. I've learned a lot of obscure things and cleared up quite a few of my own misconceptions by reading these boards. I'm happy to read the opinions here as long as I don't have to argue them at the table where they slow down gameplay.
As to the second, that would be reflected in the skill of the craftsman and the DC of the craft check.
As to the second, that would be reflected in the skill of the craftsman and the DC of the craft check.
That's certainly one way to think about it. We've already determined that it's not in the rules that way, which is really as far as this forum should take it. If there are physical limits to how far you can extend the pull strength of a bow simply by gluing on new layers of lamination, then no amount of skill will make it work beyond that point. I will leave it to the bow makers out there to decide if that would work or not. In my own games, this has never come up, and if it did I'd probably allow the player to trade in an existing bow to "upgrade" to a new version at some discount instead of messing around with the already iffy crafting rules.
Works for me.