So I look at polymorph any object (and plenty of other spells but this question is just about that one) and I see a line of text that is clearly there to protect the balance of the game in some measure; "This spell cannot create material of great intrinsic value, such as copper, silver, gems, silk, gold, platinum, mithral, or adamantine. It also cannot reproduce the special properties of cold iron in order to overcome the damage reduction of certain creatures."
That doesn't even mean anything because there is no solid definition of great intrinsic value, and that intrinsic value itself has more than one definition, all of which seem to imply that it is something that is perceived about the subject in question. I can tell you the atomic mass and density of iron, but how am I supposed to know if it has too great of an intrinsic value to make from polymorph any object (other than how it is implied that a character can make cold iron, just without a specific property it has).
Could someone please clarify what that line about great intrinsic value means? Because given enough time, I imagine anyone could make up a fairly logical explanation as to how literally anything is too great of an intrinsic value to create since there does not seem to be a solid baseline showing what is too great (and I don't buy that saying copper, silver, gems, gold, silk, platinum, mithral, or adamantine is a solid baseline because most of those are only of value because they are used as currency/are luxuries without any significant use other than being pleasant materials and the last two just happen to be made expensive mainly due to having properties that are better for making armor and weapons than iron).
Ask your GM.
If I'm GM and you are trying to profit, I'd ask you to not.
Your last sentence has answered your own question. I can't say what it is about perceived economic value that causes a material to become duplication-proof, but some mystical law prohibits it. If somebody in Golarion invents Yu-Gi-Oh cards and they inexplicably become extremely collectible, cardboard will go on that list. As you yourself said, it's not logic - just game balance.
I was afraid of getting those answers. So it is true then, I can effectively rule out literally anything that someone could sell for any amount of gold and the whims of the invisible hand of the market determine what can be made and where.
Well, at least I can take comfort in being GM and not worrying about this limitation.
Use common sense.
"This spell cannot create material of great intrinsic value, such as copper, silver, gems, silk, gold, platinum, mithral, or adamantine. It also cannot reproduce the special properties of cold iron in order to overcome the damage reduction of certain creatures." -This means that you can not and should not try to cheat the game with this spell.
Sure, you can make the argument that anything is of "intrinsic value". But here's where you should use common sense: The spell grants a few examples, such as "gems, silk, gold, platinum, mithral, or adamantine". To me, this is clear enough. This means that we can't turn s*#! into gold, both litterly and also figuratively. A frog is not gold. A really expensive peice of art is gold. A regular blanket is not gold. A 'Sword of Desteny' is gold.
Keradi01 wrote: So it is true then, I can effectively rule out literally anything that someone could sell for any amount of gold and the whims of the invisible hand of the market determine what can be made and where. No, you can not. If you do, you won't be able to keep your players.
The spell can't provide a full system or chart, it would be too excessive since it has to cover every creature and item in the game to be extensive enough. So instead, it provides you with guildlines so that you can apply common sense.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
As the GM you can do what you want, you don't even need to mangle up the pretty clear rules for a spell to do it either, you just go 'pop' and a bajillion gold pieces appear with the wave of your imagination.
Over to your players though as to how much fun that is for them.
The way I rule it my game is that intrinsic items are those items valuable unto themselves. However items with situational value (e.g., a ladder where needed) is fine. But of course ladders have intrinsic value to; I basically balance this equation against the party's WBL expectation. Would this item be valuable to the party at resale? Probably won't allow it. But I might allow items that have minor intrinsic value (even 200-1000 gp depending on level), so long as it is not being cast just to make coin and isn't on the list of forbiddens. This is all subjective, but the rule permits for interpretations, that's how I play it.
Rub-Eta wrote:
The spell can't provide a full system or chart, it would be too excessive since it has to cover every creature and item in the game to be extensive enough. So instead, it provides you with guildlines so that you can apply common sense.
Dunno, feels like saying "can't create items worth more than X gold" or "X+Y*Level gold" wouldn't be excessive or obtuse or nearly as vague as the current statement.
Google wrote: in·trin·sic
adjective
belonging naturally; essential.
It means anything that is, in and of itself, in general, valuable. Local market variance shouldn't make a difference, nor should temporary limited supply or artificially inflated demand.
For example, you can create something made of steel on essentially any campaign world in the Pathfinder and/or D&D multiverses, but on Krynn, no dice - because steel is inherently valuable there. If you were on not-Krynn and needed to create a steel spatula to save the village from rampaging werepancakes and someone had stolen all the towns iron and carbon stores, you could still create the blessed spatula because steel doesn't have 'great intrinsic value' on not-Krynn, despite the incredible market price the steel would demand in that specific situation.
As Rub-Eta said: Rub-Eta wrote: The spell can't provide a full system or chart... You just can't create things that most reasonable people would agree are valuable in and of themselves.
darth_gator wrote: Local market variance shouldn't make a difference, You say that, but
Quote: For example, you can create something made of steel on essentially any campaign world in the Pathfinder and/or D&D multiverses, but on Krynn, no dice - because steel is inherently valuable there. That's pretty much the definition of local market variance.
swoosh wrote: Dunno, feels like saying "can't create items worth more than X gold" or "X+Y*Level gold" wouldn't be excessive or obtuse or nearly as vague as the current statement. But by putting a definitive GP limit on what you can create, you do two things:
1. You eliminate the imaginative element by turning the spell into a simple creation factory rather than a story-telling device.
2. You create a situation where the inventive player will say, "If I can create items worth up to 20gp which I can then sell for 10gp, why can't I just create 10gp?"
darth_gator wrote:
But by putting a definitive GP limit on what you can create, you do two things:
1. You eliminate the imaginative element by turning the spell into a simple creation factory rather than a story-telling device.
Not really. The only difference is that you're being more explicit. I don't see how making a spell have more table variance and be the victim of arbitraty adjudication makes it any more of a narrative device.
Quote: 2. You create a situation where the inventive player will say, "If I can create items worth up to 20gp which I can then sell for 10gp, why can't I just create 10gp?"
I don't really see a problem with that question either. And it's a question you can already ask, just, again, while being at the mercy of fickle decision making and incredible variation.
swoosh wrote: darth_gator wrote: Local market variance shouldn't make a difference, You say that, but
Quote: For example, you can create something made of steel on essentially any campaign world in the Pathfinder and/or D&D multiverses, but on Krynn, no dice - because steel is inherently valuable there. That's pretty much the definition of local market variance. No, that's a specific campaign world where steel has intrinsic value because EVERYONE values steel. Local market variance is Kobold Tribe Bloodgut values pink shells more than blue shells, but Kobold Tribe Ripskin values blue shells more than pink shells. Neither has great intrinsic value because only one group values them while the rest of the world considers them essentially worthless.
darth_gator wrote:
No, that's a specific campaign world where steel has intrinsic value because EVERYONE values steel. Local market variance is Kobold Tribe Bloodgut values pink shells more than blue shells, but Kobold Tribe Ripskin values blue shells more than pink shells. Neither has great intrinsic value because only one group values them while the rest of the world considers them essentially worthless.
So where are you drawing this line? I go to another kobold tribe's village and the spell works fine, yeah, sure.
But I go to another planet and the spell functions differently?
What about planes? If I go to the elemental plane of earth or hell can I make things I can't on the PMP?
Or does origin matter? If a wizard from Golarion went to Krynn could he make steel?
You are living in a material world where value is defined by other people.
Your character is not.
swoosh wrote: darth_gator wrote:
But by putting a definitive GP limit on what you can create, you do two things:
1. You eliminate the imaginative element by turning the spell into a simple creation factory rather than a story-telling device.
Not really. The only difference is that you're being more explicit. I don't see how making a spell have more table variance and be the victim of arbitraty adjudication makes it any more of a narrative device.
Yes, really. Because now to use the spell the player has to consult charts and tables to see if what he/she wants to create is allowed. That's limiting imaginative uses. For example, "I'd like to polymorph the iron door on my cell into a cube of hardwood of a different shape so I can get out of the cell. *checks table* Oh. That block of hardwood would be worth 56gp, and I can only create items worth 55gp. Guess I can't do it."
Quote: I don't really see a problem with that question either. And it's a question you can already ask, just, again, while being at the mercy of fickle decision making and incredible variation. Except if you ask the question now, your GM can say, "You can't create gold," and it's supportable because there's no allowance in the spell to create anything of a specific value. By tying specific values to the items one can create, there is no support for saying the player can't just create the sale price in gold. The spell isn't intended to be a means to generate revenue.
darth_gator wrote:
Yes, really. Because now to use the spell the player has to consult charts and tables to see if what he/she wants to create is allowed. That's limiting imaginative uses. For example, "I'd like to polymorph the iron door on my cell into a cube of hardwood of a different shape so I can get out of the cell. *checks table* Oh. That block of hardwood would be worth 56gp, and I can only create items worth 55gp. Guess I can't do it."
That's not really any different than now. Just.. less arbitrary. Maybe it's just me, but I don't see how it's better to let the player PAO that 56 gold block of hardwood and then later not let him PAO 50 gold masterwork manacles because of their intrinsic value
Quote: Except if you ask the question now, your GM can say, "You can't create gold," and it's supportable because there's no allowance in the spell to create anything of a specific value. So? That doesn't really change the original question at all. It's still just as relevant because, after all, you let your player make a 56 gold block of hardwood that he later turns around and sells. Him asking why that doesn't have 'great intrinsic value' but a single gold piece that has 1.8% of the hardwood's value does doesn't suddenly stop being a relevant question just because it's an arbitrary call.
swoosh wrote: darth_gator wrote:
No, that's a specific campaign world where steel has intrinsic value because EVERYONE values steel. Local market variance is Kobold Tribe Bloodgut values pink shells more than blue shells, but Kobold Tribe Ripskin values blue shells more than pink shells. Neither has great intrinsic value because only one group values them while the rest of the world considers them essentially worthless.
So where are you drawing this line? I go to another kobold tribe's village and the spell works fine, yeah, sure.
But I go to another planet and the spell functions differently?
What about planes? If I go to the elemental plane of earth or hell can I make things I can't on the PMP?
Or does origin matter? If a wizard from Golarion went to Krynn could he make steel? The line is drawn by the general perception of value, not the specific perception. You can create shells of any color no matter where you are because they are inherently worthless, no matter how much a particular group of Kobolds may value them (the GM would need to determine if the Kobolds from one tribe or another have different limitations). On Krynn, literally EVERYONE values steel...it's used as currency. So, yes, the spell functions differently on Krynn than it does on not-Krynn.
Since the denizens of various planes place different values on items, the spell may well work differently in those areas.
darth_gator wrote:
Yes, really. Because now to use the spell the player has to consult charts and tables to see if what he/she wants to create is allowed. That's limiting imaginative uses. For example, "I'd like to polymorph the iron door on my cell into a cube of hardwood of a different shape so I can get out of the cell. *checks table* Oh. That block of hardwood would be worth 56gp, and I can only create items worth 55gp. Guess I can't do it."
That's not really any different than now. Just.. less arbitrary. Maybe it's just me, but I don't see how it's better to let the player PAO that 56 gold block of hardwood and then later not let him PAO 50 gold masterwork manacles because of their intrinsic value. That doesn't make it more of a storytelling tool, that just makes it a crapshoot whether or not your GM will let you do something.
Quote: Except if you ask the question now, your GM can say, "You can't create gold," and it's supportable because there's no allowance in the spell to create anything of a specific value. So? That doesn't really change the original question at all. It's still just as relevant because, after all, you let your player make a 56 gold block of hardwood that he later turns around and sells. Him asking why that doesn't have 'great intrinsic value' but a single gold piece that has 1.8% of the hardwood's value does doesn't suddenly stop being a relevant question just because you made that decision arbitrarily.
happily, magic isn't science, and so is fully mutable to take into account whatever actually has great intrinsic value. REALLY useful that way.
Has anyone else thought about the fact that you can't make objects of "intrinsic" value, but you CAN make creatures? I may not be able to turn a boulder into a mithral chain shirt and sell it, but I could turn it into a horse and sell that. The spell is arbitrary, case closed.
Deadbeat Doom wrote: boulder into a mithral chain shirt and sell it, but I could turn it into a horse and sell that. The spell is arbitrary, case closed. I'd consider a horse intrinsic value.
If I polymorphed a frog into driftwood, still shaped exactly like a frog, that would work, right?
I could certainly sell this "frog carving" for a couple silvers, right?
Would the spell spontaneously dispel itself if the piece later became highly sought after art, and sold for a thousand gold to a collector? Would that outcome make using the spell to transmute animals into driftwood impossible from then onwards?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
James Risner wrote: Deadbeat Doom wrote: boulder into a mithral chain shirt and sell it, but I could turn it into a horse and sell that. The spell is arbitrary, case closed. I'd consider a horse intrinsic value. Then the spell has no intrinsic value.
A flat 'value limit' will run into lots of arbitrary issues, but apparently no fewer than the spell as it now stands. But that's OK, you can just transform them into things that only have potential value, such as owlbear eggs.
[I feel that issues like this are caused by PF's position that wealth = lots of magic items = power: it wouldn't matter if you turned people into solid gold statues, provided that it didn't translate into you laughing all the way to the Staff of Power Store. But that's a deeper system issue than the debate here.]
Let's be clear the spell restricts creations of great intrinsic value. This items crafted of coinage materials or precious metals and gems etc. Great is the qualifying term to stop people making statues into gold, silver or even copper.
An incredible dress of silk may be worth 250 go however the bolt of silk it is made from doesn't have great intrinsic value.
"Great" is vague enough to allow DMs to control as befits the campaign/players.
This is why we can't have nice things...
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
swoosh wrote: Dunno, feels like saying "can't create items worth more than X gold" or "X+Y*Level gold" wouldn't be excessive or obtuse or nearly as vague as the current statement. The problem with this is that you give the players all the power and justification to do what ever they want within the limits of X and Y, which is not the intention of the spell (as it does not already do that).
This would also mean that the spell is much more context sensitive, everything that "should" be possible with this spell needs to be of lower value than X and what "should not" needs to be of higher value than X. That's just a big inconvenience for everyone, either the entire system would have to adjust or the spell would have to be broken or useless. It's way to hard to find a balance.
There's also more problems regarding quantity and market that would affect the spell.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
