It won't because it's extremely clear that the effect actual transforms that clothes and that the aura is an illusion aura. There's really nothing confusing or unclear about it, some people just don't like it. If you don't know that "...revert to their original form." indicates an actual transformation, the problem is not the wording.
On one hand, I find the wording super clear and don't think it actually need an FAQ. On the other, it'd be nice to not see this debate anymore and not have to worry someone's going to read it differently than you. I could see how it could be a pain to have different DM's tell you it's abilities change between tables (I'm looking at you PFS).
|
6 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Bigdaddyjug wrote: I just don't think there's anyway they're giving you access to actual copies of all those types of clothes (nobles outfit, cold weather, hot weather, etc) for just 200g and the weight of the bracers. That's my main reason for why it's illusory.
I'm also squarely in the camp that SoMG can not produce a swarm suit.
Trying to turn your personal opinions on game balance into official rules never ends well, because a lot of what is or isn't balanced is subjective. You end up throwing out the rulebook and turning the game into "GM, may I?"
Wizard: I cast Wish.
GM: You can't, that spell's overpowered.
Wizard: I cast Fireball.
GM: You can't, that spell's overpowered too.
Wizard: I cast Magic Missile.
GM: No way, that's so OP.
Wizard: Fine, I cast Acid Splash then.
GM: Being able to use cantrips all day is also OP, so you can't.
Wizard: Okay, what spells in the core rulebook can I cast?
Chengar Qordath wrote: Bigdaddyjug wrote: I just don't think there's anyway they're giving you access to actual copies of all those types of clothes (nobles outfit, cold weather, hot weather, etc) for just 200g and the weight of the bracers. That's my main reason for why it's illusory.
I'm also squarely in the camp that SoMG can not produce a swarm suit.
Trying to turn your personal opinions on game balance into official rules never ends well, because a lot of what is or isn't balanced is subjective. You end up throwing out the rulebook and turning the game into "GM, may I?" This is the best and truest thing I have read in many many pages of discussion. I'd favorite it three time if I could.
Anzyr wrote: Bigdaddyjug wrote:
Trying to turn your personal opinions on game balance into official rules never ends well, because a lot of what is or isn't balanced is subjective. You end up throwing out the rulebook and turning the game into "GM, may I?"
This is the best and truest thing I have read in many many pages of discussion. I'd favorite it three time if I could. lol i Favorited it too cause its so funny and true
Part of my issue Dimminsy is that if we go with just the spell aura, you'll be given misleading information. I expect something VERY different than the armband of the golden serpent when I detect necromancy. You end up with people like N N 959 seeing the aura type and assuming that the aura means that the effect has to be that type of effect. That said, I'd be totally cool with your was as long as there was a proviso that aura doesn't determine effect though it would only solve part of the problem.
While I understand your wanting consistency, I think doing so brings more ambiguity than ignoring the spells school and matching the aura up with the effect. That way, when you see a transmutation aura use can expect the effect to be a transmutation type. Right now, you're spinning the wheel and taking a guess on what the actual effect based on the aura.
graystone wrote: Part of my issue Dimminsy is that if we go with just the spell aura, you'll be given misleading information. I expect something VERY different than the armband of the golden serpent when I detect necromancy. You end up with people like N N 959 seeing the aura type and assuming that the aura means that the effect has to be that type of effect. That said, I'd be totally cool with your was as long as there was a proviso that aura doesn't determine effect though it would only solve part of the problem. I think we're both getting closer to the same idea. My idea was that since the aura would tell you the school of the highest level spell (and thus usually the most heavily influencing on the item's effects) and the effect of the item is consistent with the spell's school, we could draw conclusions about the item's effects from Detect Magic. As I said earlier, for the SoMG it would have (to me) made more sense to use Alter Self and ad hoc the price. This would allow for a Transmutation spell, a Transmutation aura, and a Transmutation effect. This is all consistent and would not cause unrealistic expectations from Detect Magic. Tying the item's effect within a "reasonable" distance to the spell effect and then ad hocing the price to match the usefulness of the effect would eliminate more ambiguity. This is my opinion on the most effective way to rectify the situation of course!
graystone wrote: While I understand your wanting consistency, I think doing so brings more ambiguity than ignoring the spells school and matching the aura up with the effect. That way, when you see a transmutation aura use can expect the effect to be a transmutation type. Right now, you're spinning the wheel and taking a guess on what the actual effect based on the aura. As stated above matching all 3 parts of the item together (spell/aura/effect) then ad hocing the price to a more appropriate cost seems to be a more reliable path to removing ambiguity than using any spell, choosing an effect, then having the aura match the item effect. This would allow for the outcome you and I both want ("when you see a transmutation aura use can expect the effect to be a transmutation type") and be internally consistent within the item itself as well as the Detect Magic rules. Again, my opinion, but hopefully this makes sense. =)
I'm totally fine with all of that Dimminsy. I don't think it'd be a magic bullet though, since there will always be items that don't have a spell that cleanly fit and the closest one doesn't match (see Periapt of Proof Against Poison). That and fixing most items to match (spell/aura/effect) would make the cost end of the rules even wonkier than it is now.
Now if all of this is JUST on Paizo's end, then it makes the ad hocing of prices part much more viable. There is also an issue with using higher level spells uping the difficulty of enchanting. It'd also take ad hocing a DC lower/CL level to offset the higher level spells.
graystone wrote: I'm totally fine with all of that Dimminsy. I don't think it'd be a magic bullet though, since there will always be items that don't have a spell that cleanly fit and the closest one doesn't match (see Periapt of Proof Against Poison). That and fixing most items to match (spell/aura/effect) would make the cost end of the rules even wonkier than it is now. Meh, the Periapt's Conjuration aura could be explained by saying "This item constantly produces anti-toxin inside the wearer." or something like that. Still, ironing out the small details like that would come second to agreeing on the interaction between spell/aura/effect and the appropriate price for the effect. Like you've been saying, I do think there's quite a bit of wiggle room within the reasonable bounds on item effect to spell effect (such as Assassin's Dagger using the spell Slay Living to increase the Fortitude DC of a death effect) so finding the "right" spell shouldn't take more than a bit of contemplating how you want to reskin the spell for the effect you want. Since Neutralize Poison is exactly the effect the Periapt is going for, I'd say just go the simple route and keep it Conjuration with the "anti-toxin" clause rather than try to use an Abjuration spell for a similar effect even though the item is protecting the wearer. I do agree coming up with a way to fairly ad hoc items could become a nightmare for players/DMs though, so that would need quite a bit of work.
graystone wrote: Now if all of this is JUST on Paizo's end, then it makes the ad hocing of prices part much more viable. There is also an issue with using higher level spells uping the difficulty of enchanting. It'd also take ad hocing a DC lower/CL level to offset the higher level spells. Ya, Paizo does have design teams that could come up with a fair price for all or at least most items that are currently questionable and cause less arguing among the players of Pathfinder. Once we see multiple examples of how an item was ad hoc'd from the base spell(s) it would be easier to figure out fair costs for ourselves. Whether all this would be profitable for Paizo is questionable since I'm sure the design team(s) are busy with other things. Maybe you could also ad hoc the difficulty for the item's creation? Like, if a level 8 spell that requires a level 15 wizard fits the bill/theme the closest but you want an effect that is probably closer to a level 3-4 spell, ad hoc caster level required down to 5-7.
This is getting away from the Rules Questions nature of this thread, but it doesn't hurt to have suggestions does it? =)
Chengar Qordath wrote: Bigdaddyjug wrote: I just don't think there's anyway they're giving you access to actual copies of all those types of clothes (nobles outfit, cold weather, hot weather, etc) for just 200g and the weight of the bracers. That's my main reason for why it's illusory.
I'm also squarely in the camp that SoMG can not produce a swarm suit.
Trying to turn your personal opinions on game balance into official rules never ends well, because a lot of what is or isn't balanced is subjective. You end up throwing out the rulebook and turning the game into "GM, may I?"
Wizard: I cast Wish.
GM: You can't, that spell's overpowered.
Wizard: I cast Fireball.
GM: You can't, that spell's overpowered too.
Wizard: I cast Magic Missile.
GM: No way, that's so OP.
Wizard: Fine, I cast Acid Splash then.
GM: Being able to use cantrips all day is also OP, so you can't.
Wizard: Okay, what spells in the core rulebook can I cast? One of the developers once had a quote along the lines of, "if something seems too good to be true it probably is." SoMG operating like 30 different sets of clothing that all give a different mechanical benefits sits squarely in the realm of seeming too good to be true.
I'm generally a very liberal GM and I have been known to abuse a poorly written rule a time or two myself. I just don't see how this item can be interpreted in any other way.
Also, in the case of SoMG, they use an illusion spell and give off an illusion aur? How is anybody reading transmutation into that? I could understand if either the aura or the spell was different, but with both of them pointing you towards illusion, you still scream transmutation? That's madness!
The fact that text actually says Transmutation and the fact that it is illusion aura is completely meaningless, because the rules for what a magic item actually does are in the magic item's description not creation information. And the rules text of the item is quite clear that it actually transforms.
What is wrong with having the item function specifically as it is written, (wherein it transforms your current outfit, and when removed they revert to their original form), rather than using the general rules of item creation that are there as generic guidelines for when you choose to allow custom crafting?
There have been half a dozen examples of spells/effects/auras not matching perfectly the end result of the item.
Bane weapons use Summon Monster, how do you reconcile summoning giving you extra damage?
Anchoring weapons use Levitate, why not Dimensional Anchor like the other property that functions similarly.
Distance weapons use Clairaudience/clairvoyance, how does scrying let you shoot farther?
Heartseeker uses Deathknell. What does ignoring miss chance have to do with necromancy? True Strike or even True Seeing would have been better. As a matter of fact, the ranged weapon version to ignore miss chance (Seeking) does use True Seeing.
Wounding radiates Moderate Evocation and uses the Bleed(Necromancy) Cantrip only.
So, obviously there are examples that don't mesh with the spell used vs the aura, and others that don't mesh with the function and the spell required.
Now that's just going through the Weapon enchants only, using UE, in around 10 minutes.
There are dozens of writers, probably hundreds of submissions, and items get through that sound cool.
If I have the text in front of me, that describes how something works, and it requires me to dig through several other places in order to see that it works differently than the text describing it, I do agree that we have an issue.(notably looking at you pre-errata stealth, and the horror that is lighting conditions/magic interactions)
However, it is the same issue that all too often strikes players and GM's in this game, the over-pedantic reading of the rules, which were not written with such fine-toothed parsing in mind.
This is a fantasy game, with a fairly structured ruleset, but it is still written for entertainment.
It is neither Pencils and Paychecks, nor Lawyers and Legal Pads, it is Pathfinder.
Once again, the Wounding weapon property, taken from the CRB, shows a moderate evocation aura, and the only spell used is a Necromancy Cantrip.
Not a splatbook, not a multi-function item, a Core book weapon property in print from day one, in the same book as the creation rules that it "violates".
TGMaxMaxer wrote:
However, it is the same issue that all too often strikes players and GM's in this game, the over-pedantic reading of the rules, which were not written with such fine-toothed parsing in mind.
Exactly. Gotta use some basic English comprehension without going all "That depends what the definition of 'is' is." Down that path lies the madness of single individual specific weapon focus.
And also, everyone who is arguing about it, with the Exception of the Royal Outfit (which wouldn't be believable anyways without the accompanying jewelry, although since it is also listed on the clothing table, the SoMG could mimic as well), the entirety of the clothing chart, and the questionable items that say they are clothing but not on the clothing chart, comes up to a total of 136g to 247g, depending on whether you use the low total or the high total for the ones with a price range (I used the middle).
Taking out the 3 most expensive things (which are all on the actual clothing chart and as such would be covered) it's less than 100 all told.
'Form' (generally) means either 'shape' or 'appearance'. 'Transform' mean either 'change shape' or 'change appearance'. In the context of an illusion, the 'appearance' definition would be the relevant one.
I'm pretty sure they intended for the sleeves to transmute the clothes, but any argument to that effect that relies on their use of the words 'form' and 'transform' is worthless.
N N 959 wrote: born_of_fire wrote:
You see what you want to see. Confirmation bias is a lovely thing. If the definition is a foregone conclusion without further definition, why provide further definition?
That argument fails on its face. I don't "want" to see anything. Nor have I ever said the definition was a "forgone conclusion" or that there isn't a basis for a different interpretation. You're misrepresenting my position as an effort to bolster some agenda. This just isn't true. When I asked you if you came to the conclusion that it was an illusion based on the text or the aura/spell you said it was the aura/spell. You read the aura and then went back to the text to 'make' it fit an illusion. You DID "want" to see something and said so. So it's not a misrepresenting of your position. It's pretty spot on 'metagaming' the text.
My point have always been that JUST reading text, the logical reading is that it's an actual transformation. Can it be forced into a reading that it's an illusion? Sure, but I find in an unnatural reading. I think the perfect test is to take that text, have someone that doesn't know anything about the game and have them read the items text. I'd be very shocked if you can find anyone that reads it and says 'That's an Illusion!'.
AT least Dimminsy and I can agree on each others outlooks and points of view. We've been up front with our perspectives on the issue and can see each others points. I have to thank him for a productive back and forth that got us to an understanding. It's nice to have that happen here. :)
|
