|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So the relevant rules for this are in the PFS FAQ
You may upgrade one weapon, armor, or wondrous item to another as long as the new item occupies the same slot, is made of the same material, has the same general shape, and has all of the abilities of the original item. For example, you can upgrade a +1 longsword into a +1 frost longsword or a cloak of resistance +1 into a cloak of resistance +2. You may also upgrade a magic weapon or armor into one of the named weapons or armors, such as upgrading a +1 banded mail into a banded mail of luck. As another example, you can upgrade a belt of incredible dexterity +2 into a belt of the weasel from Pathfinder RPG Ultimate Equipment , which grants a +2 enhancement bonus to Dexterity as well as other benefits.
To upgrade a magic item, pay the difference in price between the new item and the original item.
I have a few questions.
1. Can one upgrade a +1 Flaming Longsword into a +1 Flaming Burst Longsword?
2. Can one upgrade a +1 Flame Burst Longsword into a Flame Tongue?
3. Can one upgrade Rhino Hide into Mammoth Hide?
4. Can one upgrade Chainmail (Mithral or otherwise) in to Celestial Armor?
Aura faint transmutation [good]; CL 5th; Weight 20 lbs.; Price 22,400 gp
DESCRIPTION
This +3 chainmail is so fine and light that it can be worn under normal clothing without betraying its presence. It has a maximum Dexterity bonus of +8, an armor check penalty of –2, and an arcane spell failure chance of 15%. It is considered light armor and allows the wearer to use fly on command (as the spell) once per day.
CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS
Craft Magic Arms and Armor, fly, creator must be good; Cost 11,350 gp
Moving along, it is the same general shape, and has all of the abilities of the original item. Well...kinda. It does everything that +3 Mithril Chainmail does except that it has a crazy high max Dex bonus. To me this is no different than saying that a Flame Tongue does everything that a +1 Flaming Burst Longsword does except that it also has a once per day ability. The Flame Tongue doesn't mention what it is made out of other than to say that it is a +1 Flaming Burst Longsword. Sorta like how Celestial Armor just says that it is +3 Chainmail. Heck, depending on how granular you want to get I could easily see the +1 Flaming Burst Longsword being made out of Adamantine before it is upgraded into a Flame Tongue. Since the entry on Flame Tongue doesn't mention what it is made out of other than being a +1 Flaming Burst Longsword I would think that Longsword could be made out of any metal.
5. Can one upgrade Eyes of the Eagle into Lens of Detection?
Same slot - check.
Same material - check, "crystal" vs "prism" seems close enough I think if we are allowing rhino hide to be the same as mammoth hide.
Same general shape - check, I think? I assume they are shaped about the same. There isn't a lot of text in the entries to tell. But the FAQ says "general" I think for a reason.
Has all of the abilities of the original item - check. ...mostly. Eyes of the Eagle have the added effect of if you remove one it stuns you for a round.
I'm fully on board with same material and same general shape. Material seems as close as you can get without going more specific than "general". Abilities seems close enough to me but the stun bit might be enough for some to think it would ruin it all.
The crux of the matter:
A. How granular is it intended that "same material" be? Is it intended to be like "metal" or more specific like "steel"? Are we to be as general as "leather/hide" or as specific as "rhino hide" or "mammoth hide"? Is "crystal" the same as "prism" in the above example or is it intended that we have to be so pedantic as to look for a specific material word?
B. How general is "general shape"? Are most eye slot items going to be the same "general shape"? Are lenses, goggles and monocles all about the same? I'm assuming eye patches and blindfolds are too different? With weapons I would think that they have to be the same type of weapon but could see an argument for weapon groups I guess.
|
I posted this in the other thread before realizing you'd made a separate thread, so I'll just repost.
it is part of thePFS FAQ(better link)
Alright, so let's take a look:
You may upgrade one weapon, armor, or wondrous item to another as long as...
1) "the new item occupies the same slot"
2) "is made of the same material"
3) "has the same general shape"
4) "has all of the abilities of the original item"
Therefore I would conclude that you cannot upgrade Eyes of the Eagle into a Lens of Detection.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
I would say that "the hide specifically of a rhino" doesn't match "the hide specifically of a mammoth".
Turning a generic hide into a mammoth hide might be possible - the old hide could have happened to have come from a mammoth all along.
Granularity is just going to vary a bit. If an item specifically says it's made out of one type of leather, that's a rather granular item, but it's plain to see in the text that it really is that kind of leather.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Celestial Armor had a rewording between CRB and Ultimate equipment that snuck through a lot of peoples windows
I brought it up in another thread
CELESTIAL ARMOR
Aura faint transmutation [good]; CL 5th
Slot armor; Price 22,400 gp; Weight 20 lbs.
DESCRIPTIONThis bright silver or gold +3 chainmail is so fine and light that it can be worn under normal clothing without betraying its presence. It has a maximum Dexterity bonus of +8, an armor check penalty of –2, and an arcane spell failure chance of 15%. It is considered light armor and allows the wearer to use fly on command (as the spell) once per day.
CONSTRUCTION
Requirements Craft Magic Arms and Armor, fly, creator must be good; Cost 11,350 gp
vs
CELESTIAL ARMOR
Price 22,400 gp; Aura faint transmutation [good]; CL 5th; Weight 20 lbs.
This +3 chainmail is so fine and light that it can be worn under normal clothing without betraying its presence. It has a maximum Dexterity bonus of +8, an armor check penalty of –2, and an arcane spell failure chance of 15%. It is considered light armor and allows the wearer to use fly on command (as the spell) once per day.
CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTSCost 11,350 gp
Craft Magic Arms and Armor, fly, creator must be good
so while I personally will still ascribe to Mike Brocks Ruling if you read the UE Version there appears to be some wiggle room ... would be nice to have a clarification on this in light of these revelations
|
|
I would say that "the hide specifically of a rhino" doesn't match "the hide specifically of a mammoth".
Turning a generic hide into a mammoth hide might be possible - the old hide could have happened to have come from a mammoth all along.
Granularity is just going to vary a bit. If an item specifically says it's made out of one type of leather, that's a rather granular item, but it's plain to see in the text that it really is that kind of leather.
Or other megafauna. Wooly mammoth hide could make either
The game also doesnt have different mechanical effects for different types of leathernor hide
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 8
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1) "the new item occupies the same slot"
Lenses of detection as reprinted and updated in Ultimate Equipment occupy the Eyes slot.
|
|
Lenses of detection as reprinted and updated in Ultimate Equipment occupy the Eyes slot.1) "the new item occupies the same slot"
I see the discrepancy.
I initially posted this in the "How to Upgrade your Gear in PFS" thread as a response to Lune RE: "Lens of Detection". So I copied/pasted his item over on Archivesofnethys and it brought up the handheld, slotless magnifying glass that I worked with on #1-4.
"Lenses of Detection" isn't a reprint; it's an entirely different item.
That all being said, I'd be much more inclined to allow Eyes to be upgraded to Lenses. The only holdup would be the drawback of the Eyes, but generally the idea of an upgrade is to improve upon its lesser version.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
2 - It is not possible to upgrade a magical item to a named item as the latter is set up at its start and may possess personalized properties a manual evolution can't replicate.
The How to Upgrade Your Gear in PFS thread says:
"Magic armor and weapons may be upgraded to named versions if they are the same basic material and shape as, and meet but do not exceed the enhancement bonuses of the named versions. "
|
|
4. Can one upgrade Chainmail (Mithral or otherwise) in to Celestial Armor?
When the description of celestial armor listed it as made of silver or gold, the answer was a firm no, since there were no rules in place to make silver or gold armor from which you could start. With the updated version in Ultimate Equipment that no longer specifies material, the answer is yes, but the consensus is that only if it is made of standard material. I had asked for a campaign clarification on this last year, and the general consensus was that one was not needed because using a special material for specific armor or weapon would be considered "custom crafting," which is not allowed in PFS.
|
|
Thank you all for posting and sharing your opinions. Pete Winz, Wraith235 and Michael Eshleman, thank you very much for clarifying the changes. I had not been fully aware of them myself. I knew that Celestial Armor used to have the "gold and silver" thing but thought that was a 3.x thing. I hadn't looked at my CRB description of it in some time and had been looking at different sites which all had it listed as I linked above. Same goes for the changes to Lens of Detection.
BNW: I also owe you an apology. While we have talked about the topic before I think I have offended you. That was never my intention but I apologize for having done it anyway. I was just trying to understand your line of thinking. I respect your opinion very much.
The problem I see is with saying that there are no mechanical differences between different types of hide or leather. If upgrade rules specify that the material has to match exactly (steel, mithril, etc.) rather than generally (metal, leather/hide, etc.) then that is no longer true. I agree with you that I think it should work the way you say. But I am trying to separate what I want from what the rule is or should be.
Right now I feel that there is enough ambiguity to be unsure. Now that we all understand that you can upgrade magic item to a unique named item, Celestial Armor no longer mentions material (and thus the previous Dev post regarding material is no longer applicable) and Lens of Detection does take up the eye slot I wonder if I could get everyone's feeling on how the rules apply to these situations again.
From what I understand it looks like everyone is on board with 1 and 2. Most people think that 3 should work but is vague enough to expect table variation? I think everyone seems to agree with 4 (chainmail -> Celestial Armor) but with varying degrees. I hadn't thought anyone would have the opinion that it couldn't be made of mithril, I figured the reaction would have been that it must be made of it. But with the explanation given I can at least understand the reasoning. However, if I am not mistaken the previous ruling on this was prior to the change in the FAQ, was it not?
Balance wise a character could purchase Chainmail and start upgrading it to +3 and then go right into Celestial Armor. From a cost perspective this could save them from having to pay for Mithril Chainmail which is fairly expensive. On the other hand many characters could appreciate the added benefit of the higher max Dex allowed by Mithril Chainmail and it could be beneficial in the levels between Mithril Chainmail and Celestial Armor. So there are balance concerns either way. I, in fact, have separate characters that would benefit from the ruling being either way. So I don't really mind which way it goes, I just would like to know so I invest in the correct item to upgrade into Celestial Armor.
To me it boils down to granularity. If a unique item doesn't say what it is made out of then to me it seems like it could be made out of anything prior to it's upgrade into a specific item. If it just says "metal" then it has to be some type of metal. If it specifies a specific material then it has to be that specific material.
Nefreet: I hadn't considered the view point of an the eyes drawback being part of an upgrade but I can see that as well. For my part that is the item above that stands on the most shaky ground.
|
|
NP
With regards to metals, metals in pathfinder have vastly different qualities and effects. "metal" isn't one thing, its dozens. Steel, cold iron, adamantine, elysium bronze.. they have different hardness, hit points, enchanting requirements, costs, and properties when you make weapons and armor out of them.
the reason and rationale for celestial armor hasn't changed. Its not absolute but the best available evidence is that the armor doesn't have a PFS upgrade path.
|
|
There are different types of hide, BNW. Dragonhide is the best example as it is core. But there are others as well including but not limited to Dragonskin, Angel Hide, Bulette Hide and Eel Hide. And that is all before considering non-special material hides.
I would agree with your statement if it were amended with the affix "Outside of the PFS FAQ item upgrading rules..." Or at least if you understood the possibility that this could be the case.
I like your opinion. I would like it to work that way. I don't know that it does or even should.
It seems that we completely disagree on Celestial Armor but I appreciate that you are sticking to your guns on this one despite the actual rules text being in contradiction with your opinion. Chainmail -> Celestial Armor does seem to be supported by the current PFS FAQ. Unless I'm missing the part that you think disallows it?
|
Re: Eyes of the Eagle and Lenses of Detection... yeah, but the Eyes of the Eagle look like weird glasses from the 90s, and Lenses of Detection look like a cool pair of shades. That’s got to count for something. (I actually bought the lenses on a non PFS character just because of the difference in the artwork. Then again, I also talked the GM into letting me have a Fedora of the Fortunate Soldier crafter).
(It looks like according to the newish FAQ, it should work. )
When I read the original description of celestial armor, it reads as ambiguous wrt to whether the material of which it is made is gold or silver, or the color is gold or silver. I suppose that may have been debated in the past, and perhaps resolved. I guess also that it doesn't matter now, since the newer description, which doesn't have that phrasing or any other specification of material, should govern (and does, as I understand it, in PFS).
|
|
So without a ruling all I really have to make judgements on is general consensus. It appears to me that the general consensus is that all of the above things work under the new PFS FAQ. Is that correct?
I recognize that this is a relatively small sample size but it looks like everyone is in agreement that these upgrade paths work. The exception seems to be one person on Chainmail -> Celestial Armor and some uneasiness with Eyes of the Eagle -> Lenses of Detection but agreement that it should work?
Is there anyone remaining who disagrees with these upgrade paths working that would like to explain why so at least I can understand why they think that? I just want to be prepared to make a judgement on whether I am going to purchase something with the intent of upgrading if there is a possibility of it being rejected by someone.
I guess one more question: If I upgrade +3 Chainmail to Celestial Armor and have a GM (or Venture Captain) who agrees with the upgrade path sign the chronicle when doing so am I good from that point on? Or is there still a possibility that some future GM could retcon the upgrade? How is this situation handled?
|
|
So without a ruling all I really have to make judgements on is general consensus. It appears to me that the general consensus is that all of the above things work under the new PFS FAQ. Is that correct?
No, I just haven't had the time/energy to post in a way to this thread that's both sensible and polite.
I both disagree with your upgrade paths working the way you think they do and even more firmly disagree in your methodology of polling the PFS forums to determine what's legal.
Campaign staff postings, FAQs, Campaign Clarifications and Additional Resources do that. Try asking a single simple question in it's own thread and hit the FAQ button. That's how these things get answered.
I've done my best here but worry my briefness will convey rudeness where none is intended.
(Upgrading problems)
Problem 1: A lot of your upgrade logic goes "eh, probably close enough."
Problem 2: Your example of making an adamantine flame tongue shows a fundamental lack of understanding of a key PFS magic item rule.
|
|
Yeah, I'm afraid I'm going to need a bit more to go on than restating my logic and just saying it is wrong. For the record my "eh, probably close enough" is based on words in the rule like "general" and "material". I am not alone in my thought that it doesn't need to be the same exact material. In fact, I think it is near universal that people don't think it needs to be the same exact material at this point.
So, do you disagree with 1-5? Just some of them? Why? ...you know, when you get to it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since less than 10% of PFS players post on these forums I'm unsure how you come to the conclusion of "near universal" considering you can't even get all of them to agree. We are also not a good representation of the average PFS player so extrapolating is extremely dangerous.
Even if that were the case its not relevant. We could all agree that Akiton is blue, that doesn't make it so.
So my objections to the individual examples are largely irrelevant, its the process you're engaging in.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1: Yes. Clear progression.
2: Yes. Clear progression.
3: No. Rhinoceros leather is clearly not the same thing as mammoth leather. Some items really are that granular. In this case the particular animal it's made of is a big thing.
4: Yes and no. There are two versions (CRB and UE) which are both legal. So the newer one doesn't overrule the other one. That would require a Clarification or note in Additional Resources.
The CRB version is made of silver or gold. If you had silver or gold chainmail you could enchant it into CRB celestial armor. Note that you can't actually make armor out of silver normally, so you could only do this with gold armor.
The UE version doesn't list any special material so it would have to be made of steel. You could upgrade a steel chainmal into celestial armor.
Although it shows a mechanical similarity to mithral, celestial armor is not actually made of mithral in any case.
5: No, they don't have the same general shape and the second one doesn't incorporate all properties of the first one.
|
|
Lau, thank you so much for your post! I truly appreciate it.
I figured that your rulings were about how things would shake out despite my "fundamental lack of understanding" of PFS rules. ;)
Can I recommend this for a campaign clarification? Perhaps something in a bit more general form adding a bit of clarification to "general shape" and "material"? If I understand things correctly it sounds like the rules team is pro granularity so the materials have to match exactly.
The only gap that leaves is for items that don't say what they are made of. This would cover things like a Flame Tongue not specifying what material it is made out of. Without a statement saying that you have to make it out of the most basic/common material such an item would be made of I do not see what in the rules would prevent someone from upgrading a +1 Adamantine Flaming Burst Longsword into a Adamantine Flame Tongue. So, unless I'm missing something a statement of clarity might be needed on that one too. Maybe even something as simple as a "no special materials unless the item says it is made out of special materials" clause.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lau, thank you so much for your post! I truly appreciate it.
I figured that your rulings were about how things would shake out despite my "fundamental lack of understanding" of PFS rules. ;)
I have no authority over any of it, but I am totally a budybody who makes recommendations. Sometimes they get picked up, sometimes they don't :P
Can I recommend this for a campaign clarification? Perhaps something in a bit more general form adding a bit of clarification to "general shape" and "material"? If I understand things correctly it sounds like the rules team is pro granularity so the materials have to match exactly.
It'd be more of an FAQ thing than a clarification really, since clarifications tend to be on a per-item basis while you're asking for clarity about a general principle.
The way I see it, the game has many more different materials and shapes in it than strictly enumerated in the rules. So much of this comes down to "plain English" reading. If one item says it's made of silk and the other that it's made out of satin, then those are different things, even though we don't have stats for either material.
The only gap that leaves is for items that don't say what they are made of. This would cover things like a Flame Tongue not specifying what material it is made out of. Without a statement saying that you have to make it out of the most basic/common material such an item would be made of I do not see what in the rules would prevent someone from upgrading a +1 Adamantine Flaming Burst Longsword into a Adamantine Flame Tongue. So, unless I'm missing something a statement of clarity might be needed on that one too. Maybe even something as simple as a "no special materials unless the item says it is made out of special materials" clause.
I think there was a long argument about this recently, but if an item doesn't state what material it's made out of, it would be reasonable to assume it's made out of the regular material you'd make that thing out of. So a Flame Tongue would be made out of steel.
You could very much desire an Adamantine Flame Tongue, but it would be mechanically different from a steel one, and cost more. Since special weapons have a murky price formula we don't know exactly how to factor in those additional costs so that would be a point of table variation. And so we can't have that in PFS. Things that have an item costing different amounts of money at one table than at another aren't good in an organized play campaign.
Sadly, because in many cases special materials are more "needed" to make it through a typical dungeon than fancy unique properties. Access to an Adamantine Flame Tongue would make for a neat chronicle reward however.
|
|
For a general rule of thought, can you buy the item in PFS without upgrading to it? If no, then you can’t upgrade to it. I’m 99.9% certain the upgrade rules were not meant to override the limitation on buying custom magic items.
So can you buy an Adamantine Flame Tongue normally in PFS? No. That would be a custom named item. So you cannot.
|
|
Ferious Thune: Though what you are referring to is a very small part of what I was discussing I can see your logic. But the logic I gave is equally sound. If something says it has to be made of Mammoth Hide, I get that is specific and Rhine Hide just wont do. However, if something simply says that it has to be made of metal then I can definitely see the logic behind it being made out of any kind of metal. Not just steel. I don't really want to go down that rabbit hole any further as I have no plans on pursuing it. I more mentioned it as a means of avoiding future pitfalls and helping to establish a group collective on a ruling.
If you would like to discuss any other part of what I mentioned I would be happy to oblige.
|
|
But there is already a ruling on that. You aren’t allowed custom magic items. A magic item made from a special material that isn’t noted in the description of the item is a custom magic item.
Similarly, if there is a magic weapon that specified that it is Adamantine in the description, you can’t upgrade a steel weapon to become that, because a steel version of the weapon would be a custom magic item. So that part of it is already covered. The thing preventing a metal item from being made from any metal is the rule against custom magic items.
There are a few corner cases, most of which have been mentioned here (rhino hide, celestial armor), but for the most part, it’s pretty clear what can be upgraded to what. A “normal” (non-special material) Masterwork longsword could be upgraded to any named magic longsword that does not specify a material in the description. It cannot be upgraded to one that specifies Adamantine, silver, cold iron, or whatever other special material.
I have an initial purchase query: In PFS, can you pay 50% extra for a wondrous item made to occupy a different slot than is normal for it? (Or is that a not-legal house-rule I heard about somewhere?)
|
|
I have an initial purchase query: In PFS, can you pay 50% extra for a wondrous item made to occupy a different slot than is normal for it? (Or is that a not-legal house-rule I heard about somewhere?)
The source of that cost is from the CRB, where adding an additional ability to an item with a location slot costs extra:
This is not allowed in PFS, because as BNW pointed out, it makes a custom item. However, for house rules in some games, people extrapolate that using a different slot makes the item cost 1.5 times the gold amount to craft.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
I have an initial purchase query: In PFS, can you pay 50% extra for a wondrous item made to occupy a different slot than is normal for it? (Or is that a not-legal house-rule I heard about somewhere?)
Effects tend to have an associated slot; physical bonuses go in belts, mental ones in headbands. Pathfinder has slightly different mappings for these than 3.5 did. I think paying more for putting an effect in an unusual slot was a 3.5 rule; Pathfinder doesn't normally do that, but there is a price guideline for doing a slotless version of the effect.
In PFS though, none of that is possible because there is no custom item design in PFS.
|
|
Ferious Thune: As I previously said:
I don't really want to go down that rabbit hole any further as I have no plans on pursuing it. I more mentioned it as a means of avoiding future pitfalls and helping to establish a group collective on a ruling.
If you would like to discuss any other part of what I mentioned I would be happy to oblige.
|
|
I thought I did address the broader focus of your post? Isn’t this thread about what is meant by general shape and material? Things that are mechanically different or that result in items that are not legal are not the same general material.
If you want a rundown on the items you listed:
1. Yes to upgrading to Flaming Burst.
2. Yes to upgrading to a Flame Tongue. No if the original longsword is made of a special material.
3. No on Mammoth Armor.
4. No on Celestial Armor unless it’s made of gold or silver. (Or whatever it lists in the description).
5. Yes on Eyes of the Eagle to Lenses of Detection (I’d already said this, but it may have gotten lost in the joke about the illustrations. Eyes of the Eagle are drawn pretty crazy looking, so I’ve always thought it funny to picture so many adventurers running around wearing them).
I think it’s a good thing they expanded this rule. I think at some point I upgraded a Ring of Spell Knowledge I to a Ring of Spell Knowledge II without realizing it was illegal. Now it would be legal. But I’m against using the new rules to create otherwise illegal items.
|
|
4. No on Celestial Armor unless it’s made of gold or silver. (Or whatever it lists in the description).
As has been pointed out this particular one is in question
I know Mike Brock Ruled there was no path ... but the description from UE changed and removed the Gold silver stuff and simply lists it as +3 chainmailif any of them need a clarification ... its this one
Personally its not something I would do simply because of just how many shades of grey this is .... but others might be brave enough to try
|
|
The problem we have is Mike Brock's ruling. I, for one, would be cautious about going against a Campaign Leader's ruling until it is changed by a new Campaign Leader.
exactly ... tho recently I was told that rulings made by Sean K. Reynolds are no longer Valid along with several other individuals
I have yet to search for validity in that statment
also Mikes Ruling was based on the CRB Text ... not UE text
|
|
The problem we have is Mike Brock's ruling. I, for one, would be cautious about going against a Campaign Leader's ruling until it is changed by a new Campaign Leader.
exactly ... tho recently I was told that rulings made by Sean K. Reynolds are no longer Valid along with several other individuals
I have yet to search for validity in that statment
also Mikes Ruling was based on the CRB Text ... not UE text
The PDT made some sort of statement saying all of the comments of the PDT team members aren't official any more than any other post and that this is applied retroactively, so only posts made by the PDT carry any official status. Sure you're welcome to use them to influence your personal rulings on non official clarified rules, but you cannot use them to "force" someone to change their ruling like you can with PFS leadership posts and FAQs.
PFS has statement saying ALL statements made by PFS leadership ARE official and legal and remain so until overturned buy a current member of the leadership.
|
|
Sure, but then what happens when the rules of an item change? Celestial Armor is among these. The material it is made out of is no longer stated in the latest printing of the item.
Can someone point me to Mike Brock's post on this topic so that I can see what his response actually was regarding it? Context can mean a lot. If it doesn't give clarity in the current rules then there is still some question as to legality. If his ruling was before the most recent FAQ updates on upgradability then it makes it even less relevant.
|
|
Found it. That post (Jan 26, 2013) was before the FAQ update (Mar 13, 2017) but after the first printing of Ultimate Equipment (August 2012).
That leaves his ruling relevant under the old FAQ and now in the territory of needing a fresh ruling. My question stands.
I'm pretty sure that no one has ever actually assumed that Celestial Armor was made out of real silver or gold.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Slim Jim: You might think that. But then you'd be wrong.
Isn't Celestial Armor made of bright silver or gold?
Later Lau Bannenberg actually backed him up saying:
The CRB version is made of silver or gold. If you had silver or gold chainmail you could enchant it into CRB celestial armor. Note that you can't actually make armor out of silver normally, so you could only do this with gold armor.
The UE version doesn't list any special material so it would have to be made of steel. You could upgrade a steel chainmal into celestial armor.
|
|
FYI - The composition of the armor has been debated since the days of 3.0. I have always thought that it was made of Mithral due to the weight and the "silver and gold" are color descriptions not talking about it being made of actual silver and gold. This used to be the common thinking on the topic and was the popular reason given for the answer being "no" to people who asked "Can I make Mithral Celestial Armor?"
In the end I think it is just as much of an assumption to believe that it is made out of steel and is changed in appearance when it is enchanted as it is to think it is made out of Mithral. Both, however, are irrelevant to this discussion as in the latest printing of Celestial Armor it is not stated what the armor is made out of. To me I would think it wouldn't matter if it were made of steel or Mithral. Celestial Armor says that it weighs 20lbs and "It has a maximum Dexterity bonus of +8, an armor check penalty of –2, and an arcane spell failure chance of 15%." Making it out of Mithral would do no good after it was enchanted as the statistics for it are static. The only difference it would make are the stats of the armor that you are using before it gets upgraded into Celestial Armor. And that is where my interest lies.