So you can't point to any illusion effect on the armor? And no rules? SO the whole rest of the post is really for nothing? Okie dokie then.
To be clear, there are items that don't have a clear link from spell used/school aura and there effect. Posting ones that do prove nothing about the ones that don't. So you got something actually on point?
Let me add an item for you.
Campfire beads: "This tiny glass bead transforms itself into a small (2-foot-tall) pile of burning logs". Somehow this item manages to make a physical transformation with only evocation magic. I'm sure I could dig up more items like this, but why bother. It's clear that item effects aren't limited by the spells use in their creation.
EDIT : Also look at the Greater hat of disguise once.
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, alter self;
Aura faint illusion
SO there you have an item uses illusion magic to transmute something other than the sleeves.
Let me add an item for you.
Campfire beads: "This tiny glass bead transforms itself into a small (2-foot-tall) pile of burning logs". Somehow this item manages to make a physical transformation with only evocation magic. I'm sure I could dig up more items like this, but why bother. It's clear that item effects aren't limited by the spells use in their creation.
Have you read what evocation magic goes?
PRD - Evocation wrote:
Evocation
Evocation spells manipulate magical energy or tap an unseen source of power to produce a desired end. In effect, an evocation draws upon magic to create something out of nothing. Many of these spells produce spectacular effects, and evocation spells can deal large amounts of damage.
The spells is clearly in the backyard of evocation magic. "Make something out of nothing" provides a universe of wiggle room to turn beads into a campfire. And the key is that it's a real campfire, not an illusionary one.
Quote:
EDIT : Also look at the Greater hat of disguise once.
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, alter self;
Aura faint illusion
SO there you have an item uses illusion magic to transmute something other than the sleeves.
You are really grasping at straws here:
1. This from a freakin' module. It's not even a source book.
2. This is a Monte Cook module. Have you read some of the game philosophies this guy subscribes too?
3. Giving it an "illusion" aura is undoubtedly a mistake by either the editor or Monte Cook himself. No doubt, someone read "Greater Hat of Disguise" and had a senior moment. But because this is from a module and not a source book, nobody cares and it's not going to be errata'd. The underlying spell is transmutation. So no, illusion magic is not being used to transmute something.
Yet, as long as grasping at straws is quoting what was asked for. And you seem mistaken in a few areas N N 959. The campfire beads don't create something out of nothing (Evocation). That's mean you have a bead AND a fire at the same time. It does what it says, it "transforms itself" and that's not Evocation. Unless you are saying that the item in fact does something other than the text says?
On Greater hat of disguise:
#1 And?
#2 And?
#3 And?
I see no valid argument or rebuttal here on the hat. It's an official RAW item. It's illusion magic that transforms/transmutes. I assume the same rules apply no matter there the material are.
Yet, as long as grasping at straws is quoting what was asked for. And you seem mistaken in a few areas N N 959. The campfire beads don't create something out of nothing (Evocation). That's mean you have a bead AND a fire at the same time. It does what it says, it "transforms itself" and that's not Evocation. Unless you are saying that the item in fact does something other than the text says?
On Greater hat of disguise:
#1 And?
#2 And?
#3 And?
I see no valid argument or rebuttal here on the hat. It's an official RAW item. It's illusion magic that transforms/transmutes. I assume the same rules apply no matter there the material are.
The campfire beads produce flame and heat and that is all within the context of Evocation. The beads are not creating illusions or enchanting campers or healing. It's producing flame and heat and "spectacular effects" i.e a campfire.
Your Greater Head of Disguise isn't a valid item. It ONLY appears in a module written by a freelance writer who marches to the beat of his own drummer. They fact that you have to resort to such lengths, only proves the point. Find something in the Core Rulebook that uses an illusion spell with an illusion aura whose purpose is clearly to make a transformation. I'll even let you use UE and UM.
Can you or can you not?
And no, it's absolutely not using illusion magic. Alter Self is transmutation, which is ironically just what I said that SoMG should be using if it was meant to physically transform something.
The bead transforms itself. I don't care what else it can do. It does something NOT covered by the magic aura/spell requirement and that's all I have to show to disprove the "sleeves MUST be illusionary" argument.
Greater Head of Disguise isn't a valid item: Says you. This isn't a game I'm playing. I looked on a 3rd party site so I didn't "resort to such lengths" to find it. It's listed right next every other RAW legal item. SO if you can't disprove the item, you seem to want to attack the writer or the source. Have at it, but it's valid to me and I find you having to "resort to such lengths" as an indication of how tenuous your argument is.
My suggestion to you is find a written rule that says that the magic aura or the spell required had a direct effect on the powers of a magic item. Find something in the Core Rulebook. I'll even let you use UE and UM. :P
Yet, as long as grasping at straws is quoting what was asked for. And you seem mistaken in a few areas N N 959. The campfire beads don't create something out of nothing (Evocation). That's mean you have a bead AND a fire at the same time. It does what it says, it "transforms itself" and that's not Evocation. Unless you are saying that the item in fact does something other than the text says?
On Greater hat of disguise:
#1 And?
#2 And?
#3 And?
I see no valid argument or rebuttal here on the hat. It's an official RAW item. It's illusion magic that transforms/transmutes. I assume the same rules apply no matter there the material are.
The campfire beads produce flame and heat and that is all within the context of Evocation. The beads are not creating illusions or enchanting campers or healing. It's producing flame and head and "spectacular effects" i.e a campfire.
Your Greater Head of Disguise isn't a valid item. It ONLY appears in a module written by a freelance writer who marches to the beat of his own drummer. They fact that you have to resort to such lengths, only proves the point. Find something in the Core Rulebook that uses an illusion spell with an illusion aura whose purpose is clearly to make a transformation. I'll even let you use UE and UM.
Can you or can you not?
1:
Campfire Beads wrote:
This tiny glass bead transforms itself into a small (2-foot-tall) pile of burning logs
It quite clearly transforms itself, which is a change, not creating something from nothing. It would be covered in Transmutation or Illusion, not Evocation, which would cover it if it created the logs instead of changing into them. The flame and heat is covered, but then there is an effect that is not. Similarly, the Sleeves of Many Garments are always clean, which would be covered by Illusion magic[if we assume "are" means "appears to"], and then has another effect that is not covered by Illusion magic[which is, making new clothing].
2:So, because it was written in an official module that wasn't a hardback book, happens to be written by a freelance designer who did some work for Paizo, and was published by Paizo, it is an invalid item in spite of being part of a book containing legal 1st party rules for the game?
3:So, if there happens to be an item in any of the numerous other books Paizo has released, it is also an invalid source no matter how legal it happens to be, because its not part of 1 of 3 books? So, if there happens to be an Item in the Advanced Player's Guide, the Advanced Race Guide, the upcoming Advanced Class Guide, the Ultimate Combat, or any of the numerous different splatbooks that Paizo has released over the years, and said item happens to be an example you have asked for, we have to find a different one? Seems a tad restrictive, reducing the rules used in a rules discussion to a small portion of the 1st party rules of the game.
The bead transforms itself. I don't care what else it can do. It does something NOT covered by the magic aura/spell requirement and that's all I have to show to disprove the "sleeves MUST be illusionary" argument.
Over several posts on this topic, you seem to misunderstand the argument two of us have put forth. Your examples of spells which you think satisfy the criteria reinforce that notion. Let's review what is being discussed.
1. A Sleeve of Many Garments is based on a glamer spell and the aura is illusion. The natural and obvious conclusion is that whatever effect it produces is illusory.
2. You and others insist on ignoring those facts and insist that the word "transform" must be interpreted as a structural change, never mind that the word also refers to appearance. Anzyr goes so far as to take the myopic view of context within the description, ignoring the greater context of the aura and the underlying spell. Textbook example of selective bias.
3. Your contention is that the aura and underlying spell have no bearing on what the item can and cannot do.
4. My response: If true, then we should see this writ large. Many, many items should reinforce this notion. Yet, the best you can do is point to a cosmetic fluff of Campfire Beads or some module specific magic item created by a freelance writer who has well documented fringe views on magic and how it should work and whose item doesn't follow the basic rule of auras:
PRD Magic Item Creation - Aura wrote:
Aura: Most of the time, a detect magic spell reveals the school of magic associated with a magic item and the strength of the aura an item emits.
and again here:
PRD wrote:
Magic Items and Detect Magic
When detect magic identifies a magic item's school of magic, this information refers to the school of the spell placed within the potion, scroll, or wand, or the prerequisite given for the item. The description of each item provides its aura strength and the school to which it belongs.
So in black and white RAW, Monte's Greater Had of Disguise must have an aura of transmutation because the prerequisite spell is Alter Self. Because GHoD doesn't even obey this requirement it's an invalid item for the purposes of this discussion. It has no bearing or relevance to what the designers intended for SoMG.
5. Now you trot out Campfire Beads and claim that because it says the beads are transformed into a couple of logs, the evocation spell is using transmutation magic and thus proves aura and function are not linked. But you're wrong. Decidedly so.
The transformation of the beads into a campfire is irrelevant to the function of the beads because it is the evocation magic that is producing the light and heat. The resulting logs cannot be turned into a canoe or used to build a roof. There is no mechanical benefit from the beads being turned into logs nor can the logs be manipulated as one could an item that was actually transformed. The logs are not even consumed. The fire isn't even described as burning down. The logs just revert back to beads after 8 hours or if you put out the fire. In other words, the beads turn into a campfire for dramatic effect. They turn into a campfire so the author could call them "campfire" beads.
Let's contrast that with the SoMG. Your claim is that the transmutation gives a physical benefit derived from the actual clothes. That is the key. The transmutation must convey a benefit that the illusion spell cannot provide. The Campfire Beads turning into a woodpile does not convey any mechanical benefit that the evocation magic is not already providing. So the transmutation is purely and 100% cosmetic.
The transmutation of the SoMG, by your interpretation is NOT cosmetic. So no, you haven't proved anything other than you're not grasping the fundamental issue.
I'm going to repeat myself for the like fourth or fifth time:
Find me an illusion aura item whose function is clearly transmutative in a source book. In the absence of such an item, the overwhelming evidence is that the aura and spell provide the framework with which to interpret the item. Ergo, SoMG cannot produce clothing that protects you from the elements.
Quote:
I looked on a 3rd party site so I didn't "resort to such lengths" to find it.
Why are you having to go to a 3rd party site? Couldn't find what you were looking for in the PRD? If your contention that aura and spell are irrelevant then we should see tons of examples of this. Not one from a module which is clearly an error.
Quote:
SO if you can't disprove the item, you seem to want to attack the writer or the source.
First off, nobody is "attacking" the author. Don't misrepresent my posts, that is against board policy. Second, Monte's little creation violates the magic item rules regarding auras, so it proves nothing.
Quote:
... as an indication of how tenuous your argument is.
If there is a "tenuous" argument being put forth, it would have to be the one that aura and construction spell have no bearing on how the item is suppose to work.
Quote:
My suggestion to you is find a written rule that says that the magic aura or the spell required had a direct effect on the powers of a magic item. Find something in the Core Rulebook.
Sure. It's implicit in every single item in the Core Rule book. All it takes is some reading comprehension.
@anyone -
Up to this point, I can't find any rules that specify how one chooses what spells are necessary to produce which effects when making custom magic items. There was a contest not too long ago for players to create magic items. Can someone provide any guidelines Paizo might have given on how it should work.
So you can't point to any illusion effect on the armor? And no rules? SO the whole rest of the post is really for nothing? Okie dokie then.
If one were to read my post, they'd notice the part where I said I didn't have the time to find a source on a 20 minute break. It shows how little you actually care to read another person's argument thoroughly. =)
Could you point to a place in the rules where you can use a spell to produce an effect (the only purpose or one of the many purposes) of an item that is different from the effect of the spell? Where am I forbade from making a pair of gloves using the spell Shocking Grasp to produce the effect of Scorching Ray? There "...are items that don't have a clear link from spell used/school aura and there effect..." after all.
graystone wrote:
Campfire beads: "This tiny glass bead transforms itself into a small (2-foot-tall) pile of burning logs". Somehow this item manages to make a physical transformation with only evocation magic. I'm sure I could dig up more items like this, but why bother. It's clear that item effects aren't limited by the spells use in their creation.
The effect (purpose) of the Campfire Bead is not to make a pile of logs, but rather to produce a campfire. The logs are a visual aspect of it (for fluff reasons, not to gain a mechanical benefit) and do not play a part in the item's use. Produce Flame is used to achieve this effect, which is appropriate for a "campfire" item. The reason for the logs part (other than fluff) is so someone does not have an "Everburning Campsite" and instead has limitations (8 hours of continuous use, 16 hours of disuse). I'm sure this won't be convincing though since the word "transform" was used. Hey, maybe I can still be convinced! =)
graystone wrote:
To be clear, there are items that don't have a clear link from spell used/school aura and there effect. Posting ones that do prove nothing about the ones that don't. So you got something actually on point?
If there are items, then post them. I was "on point" with my argument. It's not my job to provide evidence that disproves my words, otherwise I wouldn't be saying those words. =P
graystone wrote:
EDIT : Also look at the Greater hat of disguise once.
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, alter self;
Aura faint illusion
SO there you have an item uses illusion magic to transmute something other than the sleeves.
It's disingenuous to fairness using that item, not to mention the Greater version isn't part of the PRD. We know Alter Self is a transmutation spell. The aura should be transmutation since Alter Self is the only spell used for the item (assuming you quoted all of the crafting requirements). You don't cast a divination spell and get an evocation aura (you cast a spell on an item every day of crafting, so it's going to leave an appropriate aura to the spell). I believe to argue otherwise would be for reasons other than seeking the truth.
EDIT: Beaten by less than a minute by N N 959. =P
EDIT2: Loving the social commentary people lol.
#1 I again point to the Backbreaker Mail. It's "based on a glamer spell and the aura is illusion. The natural and obvious conclusion is that whatever effect it produces is illusory." So point out the "natural and obvious" illusion in it's effects. It should be a piece of cake but you keep avoiding answering it, almost like it isn't clear cut like you want it to be.
#2 What I insist is that in natural speaking, transform sounds like a physical thing. Take the Campfire Bead, I'm assuming that it changing into a campfire isn't an illusion of a fire based on it's context and the rest of the description. Same with the sleeves. Reading the actual text make me think it's an actual change.
#3 Damn straight. Sometimes there IS nothing close so the do what they can. There aren't any 1st level spells that transmute items so they picked change self instead. Makes sense to me.
#4 You missed a part you didn't bold. I'll copy it for you. "The description of each item provides its aura strength and the school to which it belongs." At best you have a contradictory rule but I'd say specifics trump general rules so the actual entry trumps the general 'Magic Items and Detect Magic' rule.
#5 You really don't get it at all. It doesn't matter if it can only change into 1 thing or an infinite number of them. It's a transmutation and NOT an evocation. Plugging you ears and shouting isn't going to make it go away.
Also I already said, I'm not playing your game. You don't get to pick what a valid item is, Paizo does. So the hat works just fine as an example.
On PRD: it doesn't show all legal items so when looking for all legal items, it fails. Remember, this isn't a PRD argument but a RAW argument.
Dimsey: Pretty much what I said above. And again the PRD doesn't have all the rules for the game. Fairness is using the entire rules when making your argument. If you disagree, go to the PRD thread and post instead of the Rules Question thread.
#1 I again point to the Backbreaker Mail. It's "based on a glamer spell and the aura is illusion. The natural and obvious conclusion is that whatever effect it produces is illusory." So point out the "natural and obvious" illusion in it's effects. It should be a piece of cake but you keep avoiding answering it, almost like it isn't clear cut like you want it to be.
You sure are good at ignoring the actual argument being presented. =) The spell being more heavily used for Backbreaker Mail is obviously Beast Shape I which is the transmutation spell, the III form of the spell allows constrict, and the other spells are there to either increase the DC of item creation and/or cost. No where in the item is there an illusion effect, but there is a transmutation effect. The argument you're saying I'm making is "illusion magic used = has to be an illusion effect" while the argument is really "illusion magic used = can be an illusion effect, and if it's the only type of magic used it has to be an illusion effect." The Backbreaker Mail uses a spell that is in the transmutation school and thus is a valid item for a transmutation effect. The SoMG does not use any transmutation magic but is trying to be used as if it was transmutation magic.
graystone wrote:
#2 What I insist is that in natural speaking, transform sounds like a physical thing. Take the Campfire Bead, I'm assuming that it changing into a campfire isn't an illusion of a fire based on it's context and the rest of the description. Same with the sleeves. Reading the actual text make me think it's an actual change.
So someone cannot transform their view on life? Transform their mood? Those are not physical transforms and are natural speaking. I'm saying it can also be "naturally" read to mean a non-physical effect. Also, as was already stated, the logs themselves do not provide any benefit to the user, only the heating part of the item. Reading the actual (con)text makes me think the Sleeves are an illusion effect.
graystone wrote:
#3 Damn straight. Sometimes there IS nothing close so the do what they can. There aren't any 1st level spells that transmute items so they picked change self instead. Makes sense to me.
I'll assume you mean Disguise Self instead of Change Self? Alter Self is a transmutation spell that is second level. Easy enough to ad-hoc the price, as so many other magic items have done, especially for such a (as everyone has been saying) limited usefulness of the SoMG if the real intention was transmutation rather than illusion.
graystone wrote:
#4 You missed a part you didn't bold. I'll copy it8 for you. "The description of each item provides its aura strength and the school to which it belongs." At best you have a contradictory rule but I'd say specifics trump general rules so the actual entry trumps the general 'Magic Items and Detect Magic' rule.
When taken together, "...detect magic identifies a magic item's school of magic... refers to the school of the spell... . The description... provides its aura strength and the school to which it belongs." So you're placing more emphasis on the second sentence? The first sentence says the item's school of magic is the same as the school of the spell. So the second sentence states it provides the aura's school, which when combined with the first sentence would be the aura of the spell used. Guess we're at an impasse because I believe a module/non-hardback book is more likely to make a mistake (usually minor ones like the aura) than to be the intention to completely go against all logic of the aura matching the spell used.
graystone wrote:
#5 You really don't get it at all. It doesn't matter if it can only change into 1 thing or an infinite number of them. It's a transmutation and NOT an evocation. Plugging you ears and shouting isn't going to make it go away.
I guess we're at an impasse on this too, because I'm saying this visual is used for fluff and does nothing toward the actual benefit the item provides the user. It's similar to saying "Hey, can I use the spell Fire Seeds to make an item? There would be 10 red cloth patches that transform into tomatoes and can be peeled off the item to be thrown for damage? My character's backstory is that they're a tomato farmer that started adventuring so I thought it'd be a nice homage to that." Just because the items aren't acorns or holly berries doesn't mean transmutation magic was used. It just means that the item was trying to fit a theme (look like a campfire).
graystone wrote:
Also I already said, I'm not playing your game. You don't get to pick what a valid item is, Paizo does. So the hat works just fine as an example.
On PRD: it doesn't show all legal items so when looking for all legal items, it fails. Remember, this isn't a PRD argument but a RAW argument.
Dimsey[sic]: Pretty much what I said above. And again the PRD doesn't have all the rules for the game. Fairness is using the entire rules when making your argument. If you disagree, go to the PRD thread and post instead of the Rules Question thread.
So the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Reference Document doesn't have all the legal items for non-PFS games? Care to show me something that does have everything that's legal? While you're at it, point me toward the PRD messageboard because I couldn't find one. Searching for PRD, I did find this. PRD says in the second sentence of the introduction:
PRD wrote:
This compendium of rules, charts, and tables contains all of the open rules in the system, and is provided for the use of the community of gamers and publishers working with the system.
Huh.
If I am wrong on this though, point me to where the PRD is not by-all-end-all. The more the merrier!
EDIT: @Nefreet, I'm working hard for that 9th page. ;)
That item has been explained by two (now three?) people in this discussion, several times. You simply refuse to acknowledge the explanation. As Dimminsy points out, you repeatedly ignore the fact that the underlying spell and aura include transmutation. Somewhere in this discussion, you decided to invent the notion that an item must produce an effect from every school used to make it. Nobody has said that.
Quote:
#2 What I insist is that in natural speaking, transform sounds like a physical thing.
To echo D, the context determines which definition of transform we use. I look at the context and see that item is using illusion magic. You ignore that context and focus on just the description. In order for me to accept that we can use just the description, I need to see another item that does this. You haven't found one. Not a single item where the benefit of the spell is contrary to the school used to create it. Campfire Beads isn't it.
Quote:
#3 Damn straight. Sometimes there IS nothing close so the do what they can. There aren't any 1st level spells that transmute items so they picked change self instead. Makes sense to me.
Actually, there is a 0 level spell Mending which could have been used. Or Alter Self. All they need to do is get in the ballpark of transmutation. Combine it with Disguise Self[ of Prestidigitation if you want the items to always be clean and fit. Child's play if you really want to make the ultimate survival clothing.
Quote:
#4 You missed a part you didn't bold. I'll copy it for you. "The description of each item provides its aura strength and the school to which it belongs." At best you have a contradictory rule but I'd say specifics trump general rules so the actual entry trumps the general 'Magic Items and Detect Magic' rule.
I'll post the entire selection.
PRD wrote:
Magic Items and Detect Magic
When detect magic identifies a magic item's school of magic, this information refers to the school of the spell placed within the potion, scroll, or wand, or the prerequisite given for the item. The description of each item provides its aura strength and the school to which it belongs.
If more than one spell is given as a prerequisite, use the highest-level spell. If no spells are included in the prerequisites, use the following default guidelines.
Your confusion is some what understandable. The bolded part is referring to the "overall description".
Magic Item Descriptions:
Magic Item Descriptions
Each general type of magic item gets an overall description, followed by descriptions of specific items.
General descriptions include notes on activation, random generation, and other material. The AC, hardness, hit points, and break DC are given for typical examples of some magic items. The AC assumes that the item is unattended and includes a –5 penalty for the item's effective Dexterity of 0. If a creature holds the item, use the creature's Dexterity modifier in place of the –5 penalty.
Some individual items, notably those that just store spells, don't get full-blown descriptions. Reference the spell's description for details, modified by the form of the item (potion, scroll, wand, and so on). Assume that the spell is cast at the minimum level required to cast it.
Items with full descriptions have their powers detailed, and each of the following topics is covered in notational form as part of its entry.
Aura: Most of the time, a detect magic spell reveals the school of magic associated with a magic item and the strength of the aura an item emits. This information (when applicable) is given at the beginning of the item's notational entry. See the detect magic spell description for details.
Caster Level (CL): The next item in a notational entry gives the caster level of the item, indicating its relative power. The caster level determines the item's saving throw bonus, as well as range or other level-dependent aspects of the powers of the item (if variable). It also determines the level that must be contended with should the item come under the effect of a dispel magic spell or similar situation.
For potions, scrolls, and wands, the creator can set the caster level of an item at any number high enough to cast the stored spell but not higher than her own caster level. For other magic items, the caster level is determined by the item itself.
Slot: Most magic items can only be utilized if worn or wielded in their proper slots. If the item is stowed or placed elsewhere, it does not function. If the slot lists “none,” the item must be held or otherwise carried to function.
Price: This is the cost, in gold pieces, to purchase the item, if it is available for sale. Generally speaking, magic items can be sold by PCs for half this value.
Weight: This is the weight of an item. When a weight figure is not given, the item has no weight worth noting (for purposes of determining how much of a load a character can carry).
Description: This section of a magic item describes the item's powers and abilities. Potions, scrolls, staves, and wands refer to various spells as part of their descriptions (see Spell Lists for details on these spells).
Construction: With the exception of artifacts, most magic items can be built by a spellcaster with the appropriate feats and prerequisites. This section describes those prerequisites.
Requirements: Certain requirements must be met in order for a character to create a magic item. These include feats, spells, and miscellaneous requirements such as level, alignment, and race or kind.
A spell prerequisite may be provided by a character who has prepared the spell (or who knows the spell, in the case of a sorcerer or bard), or through the use of a spell completion or spell trigger magic item or a spell-like ability that produces the desired spell effect. For each day that passes in the creation process, the creator must expend one spell completion item or one charge from a spell trigger item if either of those objects is used to supply a prerequisite.
It is possible for more than one character to cooperate in the creation of an item, with each participant providing one or more of the prerequisites. In some cases, cooperation may even be necessary.
If two or more characters cooperate to create an item, they must agree among themselves who will be considered the creator for the purpose of determinations where the creator's level must be known.
Cost: This is the cost in gold pieces to create the item. Generally this cost is equal to half the price of an item, but additional material components might increase this number. The cost to create includes the costs derived from the base cost plus the costs of the components.
In the spoiler section, I've highlighted the part that you think that the rules are referring to. You'll notice the that specific description does not mention aura or school of magic. So reading comprehension suggests that the "description" referred to is not the specific description, but the "overall" description which does, in fact, include an entry for aura and strength.
So no, the rule isn't contradictory at all. You're just misreading it and looking at the wrong "description" for the information. Again, I can see how one makes that mistake given your approach to this discussion.
Quote:
#5 You really don't get it at all. It doesn't matter if it can only change into 1 thing or an infinite number of them. It's a transmutation and NOT an evocation. Plugging you ears and shouting isn't going to make it go away.
Since I am one of the people who put forth this line of reasoning, it's rather hollow to accuse me of not getting it. The problem is that you don't seem to fully comprehend the issue. It's like i'm telling you that you can't make cars out of rubber because the engine will melt it, and you are telling me that I'm wrong because there is rubber in the interior.
I'll try and repeat this one more time. There is no functional/mechanical benefit from the Campfire Beads turning into logs. The Campfire Beads could provide the same exact benefit and remain beads. This is not true for SoMG per your interpretation. For SoMG, the transmutation is necessary to actually provide the benefit you claim it can provide. If you don't understand that after three explanations by two different people, then we'll just have to move on.
Quote:
Also I already said, I'm not playing your game. You don't get to pick what a valid item is, Paizo does. So the hat works just fine as an example.
You've chosen this item because it shows an illusion aura while using a transmutative spell. I've shown that GHoD is in direct violation of RAW and yet you bury your head in the sand and refuse to acknowledge it. You asked for RAW that governs aura's and spells and I've given it to you. If you want to convince yourself that this is a valid magic item entry, that's your prerogative. But I find it rather telling that the only example you can come up with is an error.
Quote:
On PRD: it doesn't show all legal items so when looking for all legal items, it fails. Remember, this isn't a PRD argument but a RAW argument.
And yet you ignore RAW when some made-up module magic item violates it. Once again, you're missing the point. If your claims are true, then the PRD should have at least ONE example, if not many, that proves your point. If the designers are free to ignore aura/spell, then why wouldn't they ignore it all the time. But I'm still waiting for one example from the PRD (which includes ARG,APG, UE,UC, etc). Personally, I would think one might have slipped passed the editor, but if there is only one item, I don't expect either of us will find it. Maybe someone reading the thread will share it?
I still want an actual rules citation that says the rules for magic items are bound by what the spells used to create them can do. Since that rule doesn't exist this conversation is wholly meaningless. The rules for a magic item are purely contained in their description and that's really all there is to it.
Again, at best your argument can show that the developers should have picked a different spell. At worst... not even that.
I still want an actual rules citation that says the rules for magic items are bound by what the spells used to create them can do. Since that rule doesn't exist this conversation is wholly meaningless. The rules for a magic item are purely contained in their description and that's really all there is to it.
Again, at best your argument can show that the developers should have picked a different spell. At worst... not even that.
I am personally unable to find any rules that dictate what spells I would have to use when creating my own item. The rules only dictate what spells/crafting ability I need when creating existing items. RAW does state that the aura is determined by the highest prerequisite spell(s).
From that point, we have to look at the entire body of magic items and make an educated guess as to the mechanics at work. One of those mechanics seems to be that magic items do not provide benefits outside their school of magic. This leaves a LOT of wiggle room for how magic items work and what they look like when doing what they do. But, I don't see an item based on an enchantment spell providing healing or food or magic weapons.
Grant it, an author probably comes up with concept and then has to find a spell to match. So we can expect a lot of artistic license with how a spell justifies doing X,Y, or Z. But until I see an item from one school convey a benefit from a completely different school, I am under the impression that you don't cross the lines. Items based on Illusions are limited to what illusions can do. In the case of SoMG, it would have been entirely possible for them to add a spell from Transmutation. A 0 level spell would not have changed the aura, but it would have at least given a basis for a physical change. They didn't do it. So now we have to guess at why.
Educated guesses are exactly the problem. Educated guesses aren't rules. Educated guesses should never be used when discussing RAW. Educated guesses should only be used when discussing RAI. I can't help but feel your having a discussion about RAI, rather then RAW, which is leading to a number of disconnects. Simply put this is the rules forum, we talk about RAW here. If you want to talk RAI, please tag your discussion as such to prevent confusion.
I'm not guessing why or how the item works. I'm merely reading what it does and applying it. When you merely take what is written and apply it the only possible interpretation is that, Yes, as non-magical clothing, a swarmsuit can be produced by Sleeves of Many Garments.
RAW does state that the aura is determined by the highest prerequisite spell(s)
I felt it was important to highlight this line, since some people have focused on the presence of an aura of illusion when an item may have had illusion and transmutation involved in its creation.
So, what kind of mechanical bonus/effect is this supposed to create?
I am seeing what ranges between "could be useful" to "diddly squat"
Well, if it is an illusion effect, it can work as the Courtier's Outifit[because that works based off of appearence IIRC] without you having to buy it and track its encumberance? Couple of other corner-cases where you need to be clean or need a certain outfit and can't go out and buy it also might be there, but overall, assuming this doesn't provide mechanical benefits of clothing its probably about as useful as Monkey Lunge.
Anzyr: You do realize that your stance is less "rule-as-written" than folks who look at the entirety of a magic item to decide how it is run? By ignoring two facts where illusion magic is referenced, you are making your own interpretation, and thus you are making a "RAI" ruling by deciding the way a magic item works?
There is nowhere in the rules that says you can or cannot ignore the entire body of text in an item or ability and adjudicate its use. If any, there is more common sense in taking the entire unit of a rule and making a decision, otherwise you could have players taking feats without prerequisites by selectively ignoring part of a rule.
Depending how you play, you are left with two options:
In the Core game, GMs are instructed:
GameMaster Guide p17 wrote:
.. decide how you want the rule in question to work and use it that way ..
In PFS, GMS are instructed:
Guide to Organized Play p5 wrote:
.. use common sense in your interpretation of the rules ..
When folks repeatedly cite a "RAW" mantra, they're also ignoring the fact that there is nowhere in the rules that contains this term. Rules-as-written literally has little meaning because in order for a rule to be used in play, printed text on a page must be interpreted.
Thus, whenever one party argues their interpretation is "RAW" and another party's isn't, whether they realize it or not, they are confirming that in fact both sides are discussing how they run "RAI" (by interpreting the rule's intent).
There is nothing wrong with this. The rules want you to make an educated guess, and the fact yours doesn't factor in the component spell or the aura is a fine "RAI" application.
Yes, as non-magical clothing, a swarmsuit can be produced by Sleeves of Many Garments.
Sure, it just doesn't provide any protection against swarms. The transformation is appearance only based on the context of the spell. Arguing otherwise is simply an educated guess that the author was ignoring the limitations of illusion spells and meant to grant physical benefits, despite not explicitly stating this.
You're offering your own RAI. Proof by assertion isn't proof.
Proof from reading what the magic item says is very solid proof and really the only valid kind. Proof drawn from "educated guess" is not proof.
@ wakedown - Those rules are not magic item rules. I only look at magic item rules, because those are the only rules that govern them. Trying to use rules from other sections does not help your case and is in fact the opposite of RAW.
Okay I'll give up on trying to point out that you're making an educated guess like everyone else is when ignoring the text (which lies in the entirety of the magic item itself). Your guess is "I can ignore this text here... and here" when you read the rule and the magic components of it, which is totally fine.
A GM who suggests a creature that is immune to and unable to see illusions would see no magical clothes "created" by someone wearing a sleeves of many garments is about as "RAW" as you can get - given the text printed in the entirety of the sleeves item.
To contrast, imagine that the Runelords created eight sinspawn, each one has "magic avoidance" to a magical effect as if it never existed (far beyond immunity - much more than immunity to fire meaning no damage taken but still seeing flames). These sinspawn can operate as if that magic item or spell were never invented by using some sort of time/universe altering magic. A conjuration-thwarting sinspawn could walk over a Create Pit effect as if it were never cast.
Which school of magic would the sinspawn that thwarts the sleeves of many garments have "magic avoidance" to?
Okay I'll give up on trying to point out that you're making an educated guess like everyone else is when ignoring the text (which lies in the entirety of the magic item itself). Your guess is "I can ignore this text here... and here" when you read the rule and the magic components of it, which is totally fine.
A GM who suggests a creature that is immune to and unable to see illusions would see no magical clothes "created" by someone wearing a sleeves of many garments is about as "RAW" as you can get - given the text printed in the entirety of the sleeves item.
To contrast, imagine that the Runelords created eight sinspawn, each one has "magic avoidance" to a magical effect as if it never existed (far beyond immunity - much more than immunity to fire meaning no damage taken but still seeing flames). These sinspawn can operate as if that magic item or spell were never invented by using some sort of time/universe altering magic. A conjuration-thwarting sinspawn could walk over a Create Pit effect as if it were never cast.
Which school of magic would the sinspawn that thwarts the sleeves of many garments have "magic avoidance" to?
As a concerned diviner who has experienced more than my fair share of Thassilonian archaeology, I must point out that the Thassilonians in fact would not have created a sinspawn for divination, since it was not one of the 7 Thassilonian specialties. Clearly this matter is of the utmost importance and relevance to your illustration.
For the return, some day, to a glorious Taldor,
Venture Captain Marquise Cordelia Livia Cassandra Elysia Perseis
I can't help but point out that if Anzyr wasn't so vocal in his opposition I may have continued believing the SoMG were transformative.
By constantly asserting his assuredness, and forcing others to rebuke his claims, I believe I'm firmly in the camp of "it's an illusion" now.
Thanks, Anzyr. You've indirectly helped me understand the rules a little bit better.
Really. Well the desperation of the "its an illusion" camp has made more convinced than ever that it does produce an actual physical change and can produce a swarmsuit.
You dare summon me out of turn, mortal? For your hubris, I now declare Sleeves of Many Garments a necromancy effect that binds the souls of the dead to your body, torturing them until they yield the form of clothing, and since all necromancy is evil, they turn your character evil for using them.
For the love of Shelyn, this is a joke--please no one take this seriously!
Maybe obstinacy, idiocy or perhaps obsession. It takes a certain sort of annoying mindset to ignore the fairly natural wording of what the damn thing does.
I must point out that the Thassilonians in fact would not have created a sinspawn for divination..
I'm convinced there's a super secret 8th specialty and sin waiting for us to discover in AP17 or AP18.
The sin would maybe be... intolerance.
Thread derail, go!
(If not AP18, then AP33 when Paizo brings in Carl Sargeant to reboot Golarion after James Jacobs retires to work at Jurassic Park which opens on a remote island in 2022)
I now declare Sleeves of Many Garments a necromancy effect that binds the souls of the dead to your body, torturing them until they yield the form of clothing, and since all necromancy is evil, they turn your character evil for using them.
That seems fair. But can the souls of the dead be tortured into the form of a functioning swarm suit?
These threads are like soap operas, you can't quit them!
And seriously, I want those sleeves of souls so badly right now. It would be great if they had an audible effects of very quiet moans and screams as they formed the garments.
Mark just totally upstaged whoever wrote the original sleeves.
I now declare Sleeves of Many Garments a necromancy effect that binds the souls of the dead to your body, torturing them until they yield the form of clothing, and since all necromancy is evil, they turn your character evil for using them.
That seems fair. But can the souls of the dead be tortured into the form of a functioning swarm suit?
Since it's multiple layers of clothing and each layer would probably have to be made from several souls, that would total up to quite a few souls, so you would need to find a place where the veil between life and death was thin. Also, since your goal is to allowed the manifest soulstuff to be chewed and devoured by a swarm, thus further torturing those souls, one night you'll probably wake up tied up to see Imrijka or another inquisitor of Pharasma with a crossbow aimed at your heart.
And I'd like to point out that there must be an 8th specialty because we wouldn't willfully waste our 8th bit when it could be used to indicate something interesting.
I'll see if I can discover what it is in New Magincia...
I now declare Sleeves of Many Garments a necromancy effect that binds the souls of the dead to your body, torturing them until they yield the form of clothing, and since all necromancy is evil, they turn your character evil for using them.
That seems fair. But can the souls of the dead be tortured into the form of a functioning swarm suit?
Since it's multiple layers of clothing, each layer would probably have to be made from several souls, so you would need to find a place where the veil between life and death was thin. Also, since your goal is to allowed the manifest soulstuff to be chewed and devoured by a swarm, thus further torturing those souls, one night you'll probably wake up tied up to see Imrijka or another inquisitor of Pharasma with a crossbow aimed at your heart.
There you have it ... It CAN be a swarm suit! Probably ...
I now declare Sleeves of Many Garments a necromancy effect that binds the souls of the dead to your body, torturing them until they yield the form of clothing, and since all necromancy is evil, they turn your character evil for using them.
That seems fair. But can the souls of the dead be tortured into the form of a functioning swarm suit?
Since it's multiple layers of clothing, each layer would probably have to be made from several souls, so you would need to find a place where the veil between life and death was thin. Also, since your goal is to allowed the manifest soulstuff to be chewed and devoured by a swarm, thus further torturing those souls, one night you'll probably wake up tied up to see Imrijka or another inquisitor of Pharasma with a crossbow aimed at your heart.
There you have it ... It CAN be a swarm suit! Probably ...
I can't help but point out that if Anzyr wasn't so vocal in his opposition I may have continued believing the SoMG were transformative.
By constantly asserting his assuredness, and forcing others to rebuke his claims, I believe I'm firmly in the camp of "it's an illusion" now.
Thanks, Anzyr. You've indirectly helped me understand the rules a little bit better.
In fairness, I'm not 100% convinced one way or the other. The idea that a 200gp item was intended to be the ultimate piece of survival gear isn't earth shattering. And yet, I read the item as intended for social engagements. *shrug*
I don't own a SoMG nor have i made any specific GM rulings on such items. I just want to know if I can rely on the school of magic as a box within which to adjudicate items.
To put it another way and rephrase what someone else wrote - Does the person who can see through illusions see the transformed clothes or do they see the original clothes?
EDIT: I'll add that if 1lb item can duplicate all the environmental suits and what not, I would think this would be standard gear for just about every NPC past a certain level. Every noble person and adventurer would be wearing these.
So, if the effects are entirely illusionary, then the base outfit, worn prior to having the Sleeves transform them, still provide any relative bonuses?
Say, a Cold Weather Outfit, transformed into a Monk's Outfit, but still providing the +5 circumstance bonus on Fortitude saving throws against exposure to cold weather.
Maybe, it takes away the bonus?
You know, so it's illusionary enough to not provide any benefit, but not illusionary enough to stop it from creating negative effects.
So, if the effects are entirely illusionary, then the base outfit, worn prior to having the Sleeves transform them, still provide any relative bonuses?
Say, a Cold Weather Outfit, transformed into a Monk's Outfit, but still providing the +5 circumstance bonus on Fortitude saving throws against exposure to cold weather.
Maybe, it takes away the bonus?
You know, so it's illusionary enough to not provide any benefit, but not illusionary enough to stop it from creating negative effects.
Assuming that a Cold Weather Outfit qualifies as clothing to change, why would it take away the bonus if the change is illusory?
So, if the effects are entirely illusionary, then the base outfit, worn prior to having the Sleeves transform them, still provide any relative bonuses?
Say, a Cold Weather Outfit, transformed into a Monk's Outfit, but still providing the +5 circumstance bonus on Fortitude saving throws against exposure to cold weather.
Maybe, it takes away the bonus?
You know, so it's illusionary enough to not provide any benefit, but not illusionary enough to stop it from creating negative effects.
Assuming that a Cold Weather Outfit qualifies as clothing to change, why would it take away the bonus if the change is illusory?
Owner - D20 Hobbies
