That Mandatory Item Thread


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 129 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
So the difference between "a really well made sword" and "a magic sword" means less than it ever did, I feel.

This really depends on whether people can make magic swords without a specific Skill Feat, IMO. If they can, then yeah, it's purely aesthetic. If they can't, then you need to be able to make all sorts of magic items to make good swords, which seems wrong.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
So the difference between "a really well made sword" and "a magic sword" means less than it ever did, I feel.
This really depends on whether people can make magic swords without a specific Skill Feat, IMO. If they can, then yeah, it's purely aesthetic. If they can't, then you need to be able to make all sorts of magic items to make good swords, which seems wrong.

Don't we have that solved via-

- you can't make an item you don't have a formula for (i.e. "I don't know how to make boots, I'm a blacksmith")
- some of the most magic of items need access to someone who can cast a specific spell.

So being able to make a +3 longsword means you can probably make a +3 battleaxe using the same principles, but if you don't have the formula and no one is around to cast invisibility for you, you can't etch an invisibility rune on some armor.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
swoosh wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
I was hoping for something else, but it is way easier to simply reflavor than it is to complain.
Certainly reflavoring and house rules are pretty easy, but we're being told that a lack of input to the contrary is why Paizo decided it was a good idea to make characters even more reliant on magic items in PF2, so I don't think "don't worry or talk about it" is a very good answer either.

Aside from the fact that the bolded bit isn't actually true, as has been explained, I can guarantee you that a lack of massage board posts wasn't what made the difference here, because these conversations already happened on the forum. The issue was that the survey data didn't back up the message board claims. 10 people complaining loudly isn't going to beat out thousands of people filling out surveys.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
RicoTheBold wrote:
I think the expert/master/legendary items on top of the +1/+2 runes was confusing and added a great deal of complexity to selecting equipment for very little depth.

I'm not sure how magic +1 is less complex than non-magic +1. If the names expert/master/legendary was an issue, you can replace them with a single word like masterwork [masterwork +1, masterwork +2, masterwork +3]. As far as we've found out, max number/value of runes is still there for the qualities/pluses.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around what problem this solved.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
swoosh wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
We were close to that being the case, but in the end, having a +1 weapon not be magic was considered a step too far in terms of people joining in and getting confused.

Masterwork weapons in PF1 give a +1 and I don't remember anyone freaking out there.

When our group started learning and playing with 3.5 all of us got tripped up by ‘Masterwork’ and its place as an item. Personally i still hate ‘Masterwork’ as it seems like an unnecessary speed bump in an otherwise fairly smooth straightaway. ‘Masterwork’ in 3.5 and PF1 just seemed unnecessary rather than something truely special. This is more to illustrate that weather the complaints were voiced or not it was an unnecessary issue at times, especially to newcomers with no one to show them the ropes.

That said, i’m Actually on the side of feeling bummed about the change to ‘Masterwork’ for this addition. Especially with Potency Runes getting baked into a single Property Rune there actually seemed to be a perfectly vacant spot for such non-magical craftsmanship, and could have really given a good feel to loot a ‘Longsword of Expert/Masterful/Legendary Craftmanship’.

Hopefully it really ends up being a simple fluff workaround, but we’ll have to see when the time comes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
RicoTheBold wrote:
I think the expert/master/legendary items on top of the +1/+2 runes was confusing and added a great deal of complexity to selecting equipment for very little depth.

I'm not sure how magic +1 is less complex than non-magic +1. If the names expert/master/legendary was an issue, you can replace them with a single word like masterwork [masterwork +1, masterwork +2, masterwork +3]. As far as we've found out, max number/value of runes is still there for the qualities/pluses.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around what problem this solved.

I think the confusion was how both quality and rune provided item bonuses to hit but they didn't stack, and at most levels the item quality wasn't higher than the rune but some it was.

Like levels 2 and 3 you have +1 from your weapon, then 4-6 you have +1 rune as well which gives +1 to hit and dice but the +1 to hit doesn't matter because you already have it.

Then at 7 you get Master which is +2 to hit despite your rune being +1, then 7-11 you have +2 rune adding another dice but not changing to-hit because Master already gave +2 to-hit.

Then 12-14 you have +3 rune, now your rune IS boosting your accuracy because it's +3 and you're still at Master for +2 from quality, then at 15 you can get Legendary quality but it doesn't do anything because you already have +3 from your rune so getting Legendary does nothing yet but increase the property rune cap.

Then 16-19 you have +4 rune, and 20 you have +5 rune, both upping accuracy.

Now I have just explained it in about the most complicated-sounding way possible. But the thing is that way is how it may look to many. It's not something I have any confusion over but I'm pretty experienced in these things. Not everyone playing or even GMing is.

But now with the +1/2/3 (be it flavored as quality or magic) being accuracy and the Striking runes being damage dice, with neither doing both and thus no overlap, it's much simpler overall.

That would be where it's solving a problem of complication. It's not a complication for everyone but I like the change even though I didn't have trouble comprehending the previous setup, and I expect it's a great thing for those who were confused before.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean, realistically if minor magic is pretty easily available, why wouldn't a talented blacksmith or armorer make use of it? Not using magic to make a better sword when it's easy to do so is like intentionally using inferior tools.

It's like how modern blacksmiths happily use things like power hammers, plasma cutters, hydraulic presses, etc.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Part of why I liked Resonance is I dug the idea that everyone is a little bit magical and PCs just become more so through adventuring. Generally speaking anyone who is legendary, be it a smith or an adventurer, will probably be a little magical in such a magical world.

Whether it is called "magic" vs things like "Implausible Infiltration" is largely semantics, but it is semantics that people can get very hung up on.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, realistically if minor magic is pretty easily available, why wouldn't a talented blacksmith or armorer make use of it? Not using magic to make a better sword when it's easy to do so is like intentionally using inferior tools.

It's like how modern blacksmiths happily use things like power hammers, plasma cutters, hydraulic presses, etc.

If that's how crafting ends up playing out I think a lot of the issues people are bringing up in this thread go away. A really good blacksmith making something magical because they're a really good blacksmith sounds fine (at least to me). I agree with Captain Morgan that a world where magic is ubiquitous can be pretty cool for this sort of thing.

But if there's still a sharp divide between magic and not magic and the Blacksmith needs to hire a Wizard to come make their gear worth using, then I can see why that might frustrate some people.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, realistically if minor magic is pretty easily available, why wouldn't a talented blacksmith or armorer make use of it? Not using magic to make a better sword when it's easy to do so is like intentionally using inferior tools.

It's like how modern blacksmiths happily use things like power hammers, plasma cutters, hydraulic presses, etc.

The problem with this analogy is the assumption that the Magic will always permeate the product and that will be the ultimate reason it is more accurate. In the off chance the magic gets nullified this craftmenship becomes much less impressive.

Otherwise i actually like the analogy and feel it is appropriate.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Edge93 wrote:
I think the confusion was how both quality and rune provided item bonuses to hit but they didn't stack, and at most levels the item quality wasn't higher than the rune but some it was.

I'd think the easy fix was to remove the bonus to hit from magic so there'd be no confusion. Masterwork = hit, rune = damage. I 100% agree with getting rid of 2 sources of to hit bonuses.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
I mean, realistically if minor magic is pretty easily available, why wouldn't a talented blacksmith or armorer make use of it? Not using magic to make a better sword when it's easy to do so is like intentionally using inferior tools.

I'm curious why there ARE talented blacksmiths/armorers past the level to create the highest level mundane weapons/armors. If magic is what makes quality weapons, what is the impetus to further improve the mundane skill? If the dagger from an apprentice and the dagger from master smith make the same +1 dagger, why buy from the master smith?

Or is the assumption that mundane craftsman just make magic items 'cuz magic' as they level up their skill? I don't know which way seems odder to me.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Level 2 characters (without access to spell slots or focus spells) can make magic items in the playtest. Ritual magic is available to literally everyone, so it's easy to justify whatever lowercase-r rituals the blacksmith keeps (e.g. working a tiny bit of the same bar of steel into everything they make, and working a piece of everything they make back into the bar, saying a prayer to the spirits of the forge before tempering the piece, the specific patterns you draw when etching, whatever) as working like Ritual magic.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, realistically if minor magic is pretty easily available, why wouldn't a talented blacksmith or armorer make use of it? Not using magic to make a better sword when it's easy to do so is like intentionally using inferior tools.

It's like how modern blacksmiths happily use things like power hammers, plasma cutters, hydraulic presses, etc.

If that's how crafting ends up playing out I think a lot of the issues people are bringing up in this thread go away. A really good blacksmith making something magical because they're a really good blacksmith sounds fine (at least to me). I agree with Captain Morgan that a world where magic is ubiquitous can be pretty cool for this sort of thing.

But if there's still a sharp divide between magic and not magic and the Blacksmith needs to hire a Wizard to come make their gear worth using, then I can see why that might frustrate some people.

This was not the case in the playtest and almost certainly won't be the case in PF2. "Magical Crafting" was a single skill feat that only required Expert in crafting. So literally any expert smith can pick it up. They don't even need training in arcana or any other skill, oddly enough. Which is a little weird if you think about it too hard, but I will take that over how hard it was for non-wizards to craft in PF1.

So it probably comes down to "a really good blacksmith making something magical because they're a really good blacksmith," as you put it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Level 2 characters (without access to spell slots or focus spells) can make magic items in the playtest. Ritual magic is available to literally everyone, so it's easy to justify whatever lowercase-r rituals the blacksmith keeps (e.g. working a tiny bit of the same bar of steel into everything they make, and working a piece of everything they make back into the bar, saying a prayer to the spirits of the forge before tempering the piece, the specific patterns you draw when etching, whatever) as working like Ritual magic.

But that again, doesn't answer WHY there would ever be a master smith: You instead need a master ritual specialist that's at least an apprentice smith. Is there anything inherently better about the weapon in an antimagic field: IE any mundane improvement in the actual weapon not tied to the ritual? And if there is, why is the magic/ritual needed?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

When looking through the Magic Items in the Playtest some of the Items had Crafting requirements. Ones that needed a specific spell simply said, ‘Supply a Casting of X Spell’, so a scroll would work for those items. Ring of Wizardry is the only one i can think of off hand that Requires you to be an Arcane Spellcaster specifically.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Master Smiths just do the rituals correctly without knowing that they are because "that's how I've always done it, and that's how it works." Or "these techniques have been passed down for 137 generations, and it works."

It could be a wizard's thesis as to *why* the little things that the best smiths do without thinking about it result in inherently magical items, but the smith doesn't need to know that, any more than they need to be a materials engineer.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Master Smiths just do the rituals correctly without knowing that they are because "that's how I've always done it, and that's how it works." Or "these techniques have been passed down for 137 generations, and it works."

So why go through all the 137 generations of work and not just learn the ritual? And what about the self taught smith? Ritual use by osmosis? This whole thing hurts my brain. None of these explanations are meshing with my in game logic.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Don't think of it as a specific ritual- think of it as the craftsperson unconsciously applying the same principles that make ritual magic work (whatever those are) based on "learning what gives the best results" via trial and error.

Rituals are just formalization of "doing these things in the correct order makes magic happen."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Don't think of it as a specific ritual- think of it as the craftsperson unconsciously applying the same principles that make ritual magic work (whatever those are) based on "learning what gives the best results" via trial and error.

Rituals are just formalization of "doing these things in the correct order makes magic happen."

Not a fan of ritual by osmosis... Hit a piece of metal enough times and anyone can do magic... It makes me worried that happens if I weave enough baskets. :P

Now if it was a feat/ritual someone had to go out an learn, I wouldn't like it but I could understand it. But something everyone everywhere learns once they hit some arbitrary 'hit metal with hammer' counter, not so much. "Don't worry guys, just 200 more strikes and I'll be able to make +1 weapons!" sounds lame to me. Now if you have to go out of your way to do something special [training, drinking some sacred dwarven stout, borrow the original smith union handbook, buy exotic materials and experiment] and spend some resources [feat, buy ritual, ect] it makes some sense to me. Spontaneous spiritual enlightenment for every smith that does nothing but the normal smithing day in and out, no. Heck, even the god of smithing personally handing out rituals to smiths makes more sense to me. :P


3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Don't think of it as a specific ritual- think of it as the craftsperson unconsciously applying the same principles that make ritual magic work (whatever those are) based on "learning what gives the best results" via trial and error.

Rituals are just formalization of "doing these things in the correct order makes magic happen."

So. . . Handwave the specifics then?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Don't think of it as a specific ritual- think of it as the craftsperson unconsciously applying the same principles that make ritual magic work (whatever those are) based on "learning what gives the best results" via trial and error.

Rituals are just formalization of "doing these things in the correct order makes magic happen."

So. . . Handwave the specifics then?

A wizard did it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Don't think of it as a specific ritual- think of it as the craftsperson unconsciously applying the same principles that make ritual magic work (whatever those are) based on "learning what gives the best results" via trial and error.

Rituals are just formalization of "doing these things in the correct order makes magic happen."

So. . . Handwave the specifics then?
A wizard did it.

Cursed Fingerwagglers


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber
graystone wrote:
Now if it was a feat/ritual someone had to go out an learn, I wouldn't like it but I could understand it. But something everyone everywhere learns once they hit some arbitrary 'hit metal with hammer' counter, not so much. "Don't worry guys, just 200 more strikes and I'll be able to make +1 weapons!" sounds lame to me.

I mean, that's basically not meaningfully different from the "katanas made from steel folded 1000 times" trope that exists.

Or for a completely different direction, it's like the old plumber/electrician/whatever joke about paying for the 20 years of experience in knowing where to hit the hammer.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Don't think of it as a specific ritual- think of it as the craftsperson unconsciously applying the same principles that make ritual magic work (whatever those are) based on "learning what gives the best results" via trial and error.

Rituals are just formalization of "doing these things in the correct order makes magic happen."

So. . . Handwave the specifics then?

Well, magic exists in the setting as essentially another branch of physics- it's a way fundamentally to take energy from somewhere otherwise inaccessible and move it around. It's fictional, but people in the diagesis seem to have a handle on how it works. But just like you don't need a formal education in thermodynamics to make an evaporative cooler work (they had them in Persia 3000 years ago), you shouldn't need any particular insight into "how magic works" in order to make magic work.

So just like how a Bard can make time stop by just wailing on the bagpipes (and we do not require a whole unified theory of how bagpipes control space and time), it's not a stretch to think that the song a smith hums to herself when she's working the forge makes the sword especially well balanced. But just like no GM would force a Bard to use bagpipes to cast time stop, since magic is imaginary, we can just leave it to the player to explain how their magic functions. So if you want, treat "what sorts of things do you do to make the sword extra good" as an improv prompt just like you would if "how exactly does your wizard turn bat guano into a fireball" was somehow relevant.

But barring a need for specifics we can just figure out that the expert blacksmith with the magical crafting feat has figured out something they can do during the smithing process to make the swords come out magic. After all "occult magic" is kind of "the stuff we know works, but don't really understand why."


graystone wrote:
But something everyone everywhere learns once they hit some arbitrary 'hit metal with hammer' counter, not so much. "Don't worry guys, just 200 more strikes and I'll be able to make +1 weapons!" sounds lame to me. Now if you have to go out of your way to do something special [training, drinking some sacred dwarven stout, borrow the original smith union handbook, buy exotic materials and experiment] and spend some resources [feat, buy ritual, ect] it makes some sense to me. Spontaneous spiritual enlightenment for every smith that does nothing but the normal smithing day in and out, no. Heck, even the god of smithing personally handing out rituals to smiths makes more sense to me. :P

It sounds like now you're basically just arguing against the concept of XP and leveling up entirely more than specifically about item crafting.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber
Squiggit wrote:
graystone wrote:
But something everyone everywhere learns once they hit some arbitrary 'hit metal with hammer' counter, not so much. "Don't worry guys, just 200 more strikes and I'll be able to make +1 weapons!" sounds lame to me. Now if you have to go out of your way to do something special [training, drinking some sacred dwarven stout, borrow the original smith union handbook, buy exotic materials and experiment] and spend some resources [feat, buy ritual, ect] it makes some sense to me. Spontaneous spiritual enlightenment for every smith that does nothing but the normal smithing day in and out, no. Heck, even the god of smithing personally handing out rituals to smiths makes more sense to me. :P
It sounds like now you're basically just arguing against the concept of XP and leveling up entirely more than specifically about item crafting.

Which would be totally fair. How can you be a legendary craftsman without also being level 15, right? That's like being on the Jedi Council without being granted the rank of Master.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Don't think of it as a specific ritual- think of it as the craftsperson unconsciously applying the same principles that make ritual magic work (whatever those are) based on "learning what gives the best results" via trial and error.

Rituals are just formalization of "doing these things in the correct order makes magic happen."

So. . . Handwave the specifics then?

Well, magic exists in the setting as essentially another branch of physics- it's a way fundamentally to take energy from somewhere otherwise inaccessible and move it around. It's fictional, but people in the diagesis seem to have a handle on how it works. But just like you don't need a formal education in thermodynamics to make an evaporative cooler work (they had them in Persia 3000 years ago), you shouldn't need any particular insight into "how magic works" in order to make magic work.

So just like how a Bard can make time stop by just wailing on the bagpipes (and we do not require a whole unified theory of how bagpipes control space and time), it's not a stretch to think that the song a smith hums to herself when she's working the forge makes the sword especially well balanced. But just like no GM would force a Bard to use bagpipes to cast time stop, since magic is imaginary, we can just leave it to the player to explain how their magic functions. So if you want, treat "what sorts of things do you do to make the sword extra good" as an improv prompt just like you would if "how exactly does your wizard turn bat guano into a fireball" was somehow relevant.

But barring a need for specifics we can just figure out that the expert blacksmith with the magical crafting feat has figured out something they can do during the smithing process to make the swords come out magic. After all "occult magic" is kind of "the stuff we know works, but don't really understand why."

Yeah, my problem isn’t with the explanation of it. As i said, i liked your example; but when put into mechanics it’s fundamentally flawed without saying, ‘GM: Cause i say so.’ Thus ‘Handwave the specifics.’

To add i’m Not saying there should be a mechanic for every single thing; good god we have 3.5 and PF1e for that (and there are some things that i like about that). For me there comes a flaw in consistancy rather than logic when you can look at maybe a dozen blacksmiths in a campaign, or every campaign, from different towns and villages and ways of life, that know some secret for crafting Master level or Legendary weapons and still probably die in a single hit cause it’s an NPC; and chances are if you try and learn his family secret either he won’t teach you till you’re high enough level or you can’t understand it cause you’re too low level. . . When they aren’t even level 1.

I’m all for coming up with reasonings for flavors and explanations for things to add to a story; just not to cover up a mechanical inconsistency.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
RicoTheBold wrote:
graystone wrote:
Now if it was a feat/ritual someone had to go out an learn, I wouldn't like it but I could understand it. But something everyone everywhere learns once they hit some arbitrary 'hit metal with hammer' counter, not so much. "Don't worry guys, just 200 more strikes and I'll be able to make +1 weapons!" sounds lame to me.

I mean, that's basically not meaningfully different from the "katanas made from steel folded 1000 times" trope that exists.

Or for a completely different direction, it's like the old plumber/electrician/whatever joke about paying for the 20 years of experience in knowing where to hit the hammer.

I'd say that it glowing from a detect magic spell a meaningful difference. My whole thing is that it's NOT like the katana trope: it's a bog standard butterknife except it's magic and not an exceptional quality item made with actual skill. The difference is 'a wizard did it', not 'it's high quality: as far as I can tell, unless someone can detect magic, a plain old dagger and a +1 dagger would appraise the same as it's not a better dagger, but a more magical dagger.

Squiggit wrote:
graystone wrote:
But something everyone everywhere learns once they hit some arbitrary 'hit metal with hammer' counter, not so much. "Don't worry guys, just 200 more strikes and I'll be able to make +1 weapons!" sounds lame to me. Now if you have to go out of your way to do something special [training, drinking some sacred dwarven stout, borrow the original smith union handbook, buy exotic materials and experiment] and spend some resources [feat, buy ritual, ect] it makes some sense to me. Spontaneous spiritual enlightenment for every smith that does nothing but the normal smithing day in and out, no. Heck, even the god of smithing personally handing out rituals to smiths makes more sense to me. :P
It sounds like now you're basically just arguing against the concept of XP and leveling up entirely more than specifically about item crafting.

Not at all, if you hit a monster 200 times I have no issue with you going up a level. If you hit a piece of metal 200 times, I have no issue with your proficiency level going up. What I have an issue with is 200 hit giving you an entirely tangential ability that has nothing to do with what you're doing: ie, somehow doing smithing teaches you magic/rituals... It's like if I stack enough stones, I can learn ki abilities or stances without being a monk.


RicoTheBold wrote:
Which would be totally fair. How can you be a legendary craftsman without also being level 15, right? That's like being on the Jedi Council without being granted the rank of Master.

I wasn't thinking of NPC's. You can handwave them much more easily: you don't have to explain how they learned a ritual as you aren't doing a complete minute by minute breakdown of them: this is especially true if they aren't built like a PC as they don't have true classes, skills and such. I was thinking of the PC that, in full view of the other characters, one day picks up ritual casting while fixing someone's breastplate... Does a woodworker learn how to make wands while making arrows? They seem to be able to figure out magic staves by doing so.


graystone wrote:
What I have an issue with is 200 hit giving you an entirely tangential ability that has nothing to do with what you're doing

It's a little dubious to try to argue that crafting magic weapons is "entirely tangential" and "has nothing to do with" crafting weapons.

My point is I don't see how you can be okay with a Sorcerer killing a goblin with a magic missile, leveling up and then learning Fireball but not okay with a Smith gaining experience and learning to craft better weapons as a result.

It's the same principle and frankly a lot more connected to the core of what the smith is doing than a lot of what an adventurer could worn on a level tick.

Quote:
It's like if I stack enough stones, I can learn ki abilities or stances without being a monk.

Sounds like you wouldn't be a fan of multiclassing then either.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber
graystone wrote:
RicoTheBold wrote:
Which would be totally fair. How can you be a legendary craftsman without also being level 15, right? That's like being on the Jedi Council without being granted the rank of Master.
I wasn't thinking of NPC's. You can handwave them much more easily: you don't have to explain how they learned a ritual as you aren't doing a complete minute by minute breakdown of them: this is especially true if they aren't built like a PC as they don't have true classes, skills and such. I was thinking of the PC that, in full view of the other characters, one day picks up ritual casting while fixing someone's breastplate... Does a woodworker learn how to make wands while making arrows? They seem to be able to figure out magic staves by doing so.

That's a helpful clarification. While I don't agree with you on where the system has a disconnect the flavor of the rules, I genuinely do have a similar issue with low-level NPCs doing stuff out of reach of high level player characters. I made a dumb Star Wars meme joke, but that's a disconnect that just exists with level-based systems, and I take the bad with the good there.

As part of that, I've also sort of accepted the weirdness of the magic-item driven economy for 20 years of 3.x and PF. It is much harder for met to deal with a legendary sword that costs 6500 gold but is worse in every way than potential when compared with a 2000 gold +3 sword...that could still be made legendary later for some reason, but it wouldn't be worth doing until after making it a +4 sword, unless you really just wanted one more property rune...etc.

I'm perfectly happy to tell people that a +1 gives them that much to hit. I think it's the same way in D&D 5E (I don't play it), which is not important but is a nice little bonus. Whether weapons with such metagame names as +1 weapons should be a thing is a perfectly valid question, but like the six stats, they're just a holdover of the system that has a lot of inertia, and there's no harm in renaming them in house games, or even re-flavoring them to be non-magical in nature (including adding mechanical changes like using craft for identification rolls instead of a magical tradition).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
It's a little dubious to try to argue that crafting magic weapons is "entirely tangential" and "has nothing to do with" crafting weapons.

Because one is a skill and the other involves spells/rituals/ect? And the skill in question doesn't involve magic in any way. Does a high arcana used enough times let you cast spells? Does enough diplomacy checks let my cast charm person? Imtimitate checks let me cast fear? Athletics get me a jump spell? Were talking about a single mundane skill giving a magic effect but none of then others. If enough swings with a hammer teaches you a ritual, why no other skill?

Squiggit wrote:
My point is I don't see how you can be okay with a Sorcerer killing a goblin with a magic missile, leveling up and then learning Fireball but not okay with a Smith gaining experience and learning to craft better weapons as a result.

Nothing illogical, IMO, with learning something new about magic while using magic. I have an issue if you can use a skill enough times to get a non-skill ability or use spells enough to get a non-spell ability, ect.

Squiggit wrote:
It's the same principle and frankly a lot more connected to the core of what the smith is doing than a lot of what an adventurer could worn on a level tick.

I'll agree to disagree: I see no "same principle" and no connecting... It's apples [skills] and oranges [magic].

Squiggit wrote:
Sounds like you wouldn't be a fan of multiclassing then either.

Why? You become a monk [multiclassing] to learn monk abilities... Makes perfect sense. What you're talking about is like multiclassing into fighter [mundane] and getting spells [magic]...


6 people marked this as a favorite.

If every weapon that is a bit better than the baseline is magic, it devalues mastery of mundane skills.
The trope katana isn't so awesome because magic but because the steel was folded a bazillion times by a master smith that has practised since they were 4.

If going that way, why not put the "magical" trait on every proficiency above trained?


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I'm still mostly concerned with whether or not there is a feat tax in addition to advancing the craft skill in making the "baseline" expected items for your level.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Hmm I may have to house-rule this so that smiths do the to hit and the runes do the damage.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
It's a little dubious to try to argue that crafting magic weapons is "entirely tangential" and "has nothing to do with" crafting weapons.

Because one is a skill and the other involves spells/rituals/ect? And the skill in question doesn't involve magic in any way. Does a high arcana used enough times let you cast spells? Does enough diplomacy checks let my cast charm person? Imtimitate checks let me cast fear? Athletics get me a jump spell? Were talking about a single mundane skill giving a magic effect but none of then others. If enough swings with a hammer teaches you a ritual, why no other skill?

Squiggit wrote:
My point is I don't see how you can be okay with a Sorcerer killing a goblin with a magic missile, leveling up and then learning Fireball but not okay with a Smith gaining experience and learning to craft better weapons as a result.

Nothing illogical, IMO, with learning something new about magic while using magic. I have an issue if you can use a skill enough times to get a non-skill ability or use spells enough to get a non-spell ability, ect.

Squiggit wrote:
It's the same principle and frankly a lot more connected to the core of what the smith is doing than a lot of what an adventurer could worn on a level tick.

I'll agree to disagree: I see no "same principle" and no connecting... It's apples [skills] and oranges [magic].

Squiggit wrote:
Sounds like you wouldn't be a fan of multiclassing then either.
Why? You become a monk [multiclassing] to learn monk abilities... Makes perfect sense. What you're talking about is like multiclassing into fighter [mundane] and getting spells [magic]...

So what I'm not seeing acknowledged in this a lot is, are we sure you have to explicitly use magic for these weapons? The impression I got was that it's like "you made your sword so good it's actually magical".

And failing that, if you have a problem with the whole magic thing, just freaking use the mundane quality variant/flavor and let the magic swordsmith people have their magic swordsmiths.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I think people valued the player experience feel over the internal game logistics on this one.

Internal to the game, it’s cool and fitting if master swordsmiths are making more accurate weapons with advanced forging techniques, no magic involved. But, that’s more of an NPC/world focus.

For player experience, though, it’s expected that weapons have their accuracy bonus listed, and it’s also expected that any “+X” item is magical. Enough people- both old and new players- felt that way that it was worth prioritizing that fantasy experience over nicer world stuff.

Personally, I think I’ll have both. Most weapon smiths pick up that little bit of magic because it’s so much easier to magically nudge an arrow in the right direction than to craft a truly flawless bow. Let alone trying to dramatically improve the accuracy of blunt instruments like clubs and war hammers! But some of the longer-lived or especially dedicated smiths do craft exceptionally fine weapons that achieve the same results without magic, mostly used by nobles for their reliability even when magic fails.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

From a GM perspective it's really easy to fix since the idea of a "expert" or "master" weapon is just flavor text anyways.

"In the treasure horde you find a sword of unsurpassed quality. The edge of the blade is honed to a razor thin line while the pommel and brace are perfectly balanced. It feels as if the grip was molded specifically for your hand. It moves like an extension of your arm and flows as water. Clearly a work of art that had to be crafted by a truely legendary swordsmith, whose skill was unsurpassed and whose like is not seen but once in a generation."

"treat this as a +3 longsword"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Edge93 wrote:
So what I'm not seeing acknowledged in this a lot is, are we sure you have to explicitly use magic for these weapons? The impression I got was that it's like "you made your sword so good it's actually magical".

That sounds like semantics. It doesn't really matter HOW it's done if it's a natural progression of the skill and not something external that costs some kind of resource to do. My point has been, if smiths can make things magical because 'they make it so good', why can't EVERY craftsman do so with their own creations?

The whole ritual thing was an effort by another poster on how to think about it but IMO it doesn't make it any better to think that way. [for me at least]

Edge93 wrote:
And failing that, if you have a problem with the whole magic thing, just freaking use the mundane quality variant/flavor and let the magic swordsmith people have their magic swordsmiths.

I don't get to do that. I'm not the Dm and because I play online, I play with a lot of different DM's. I'd have to negotiate a house/optional rule EVERY time I join a new game. It's NOT always as easy as 'well just houserule it if you don't like it'. It's going to be something irksome I have to deal with on a ongoing basis. For instance, if someone plays in PFS and it's the rule there, do you expect them to allow someone to "just freaking use the mundane quality variant/flavor"?

QuidEst wrote:
Personally, I think I’ll have both. Most weapon smiths pick up that little bit of magic because it’s so much easier to magically nudge an arrow in the right direction than to craft a truly flawless bow.

I'd be all for this if it was consistent across all the crafts Can a glass-maker's vial magically nudge itself when thrown to hit someone? Does a paper maker learn to ward his paper from fire? This seems to be a super special smith only ability to grant magic.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

QuidEst sums it up for me pretty nicely. It’s not so much that smiths can craft magical gear with hard work or family rituals or some-such, but it’s a slight disconnect that feels like once something is crafted well enough it just becomes magical period. This can work fine in settings that allow for it, and Golarion is a setting it can work in just fine.

The other small gripe i have with it are the outlier cases this may affect. If anything anti-magic, magic resistant, magic sensitive interacts with it the intuitive thing will be to treat it as magic. Why appraise weapons when you can just find out how good they can be with Detect Magic? Is the level 9 Rogue armed? Detect Magic. Anti-Magic Zone? Fighter becomes less accurate. Is the creature resistant to magic? You may have to toss that +1 for a regular version.

To stress, i’m Not saying these situations will be common by any standard; at least i really hope not. It’s more the idea that now they even can become an issue that seems odd to begin with. I personally feel it was the wrong decision, but certainly made for the right reason. I’m hoping it can just be a cosmetic thing that doesn’t have to really be worried about, but time will tell for that to be the case.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
This can work fine in settings that allow for it, and Golarion is a setting it can work in just fine.

The disconnect for me is that only weapons/armor can become magical from being crafted well: no other items spontaneously does this.

Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
The other small gripe...

Yeah, I wondered about the appraise. Can you do it without detect magic? It's a strange combo of quality/magic now. Is there any detectable difference between the +1 and the normal blade other than the magic +1?


graystone wrote:


Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
The other small gripe...
Yeah, I wondered about the appraise. Can you do it without detect magic? It's a strange combo of quality/magic now. Is there any detectable difference between the +1 and the normal blade other than the magic +1?

On that at least, remember that Detect Magic doesn't actually tell you much about your target. I forget the exact specifics but IIRC the best you get is what school of magic the strongest aura in the area is (with allowance for you to ignore known magic auras IIRC).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Detect Magic in the playtest only managed to say if something was magical or not and watching Oblivion Oath this looks to be still true, the heightened versions was to discover the school of magic and vague location of the magic.

And in Oblivion Oath again they managed to appraise an item with just a craft skill check.

Anyway, tomato tomato about weapons being magic or not.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Edge93 wrote:
graystone wrote:


Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
The other small gripe...
Yeah, I wondered about the appraise. Can you do it without detect magic? It's a strange combo of quality/magic now. Is there any detectable difference between the +1 and the normal blade other than the magic +1?
On that at least, remember that Detect Magic doesn't actually tell you much about your target. I forget the exact specifics but IIRC the best you get is what school of magic the strongest aura in the area is (with allowance for you to ignore known magic auras IIRC).

This then makes me ask, what school of magic is a +1? ;)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

From an "quality of life" perspective, having detect magic ping on all the swords that are worth picking up is nice.


graystone wrote:
Edge93 wrote:
graystone wrote:


Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
The other small gripe...
Yeah, I wondered about the appraise. Can you do it without detect magic? It's a strange combo of quality/magic now. Is there any detectable difference between the +1 and the normal blade other than the magic +1?
On that at least, remember that Detect Magic doesn't actually tell you much about your target. I forget the exact specifics but IIRC the best you get is what school of magic the strongest aura in the area is (with allowance for you to ignore known magic auras IIRC).
This then makes me ask, what school of magic is a +1? ;)

it comes from the Arcane School of Numbers; sometimes referred to as ‘Calculus’


I think that +1 on weapons were evocation and a +1 on armor was abjuration. At least I remember reading that in PF1


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
graystone wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
This can work fine in settings that allow for it, and Golarion is a setting it can work in just fine.

The disconnect for me is that only weapons/armor can become magical from being crafted well: no other items spontaneously does this.

Do we know this to be true, or it a guess? I doesn't really bother me either way; I'm perfectly fine with the assumption that all weapons with magical accuracy bonuses are inherently magical in their crafting, and that learning the rituals to make them magical is part of the formula to craft them. But I am curious how this actually breaks down.

It certainly would make sense that all items that give +1 or whatever are now magical, and that masterwork is no longer a thing (or is simply bundled with the measure of how inherently magical the tool is), but if weapons and armor are different in this manner, I'm not bothered.

As to the unasked question upthread about what happens when magic gets weaved into baskets, well, talismans come from somewhere. Might as well be that.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, per the playtest rules if you have expert crafting and magical crafter you can make more or less any magic item (with a formula which is not rated higher than expert) which does not have an additional crafting requirement (most things don't).

Presumably the town blacksmith (who makes lots of +1 weapons) could manage magical baskets if they had the formula.

I'm sort of imagining a scenario where the PCs are in a rich person's house and someone detects magic and everything in sight lights up- the magical carpets and furniture keep themselves clean, the magical wallpaper can change patterns, the magical curtains open or close when you clap your hands, the magical tableware keeps foods at the correct temperature, etc.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I had the same thought. The idea of a +3 coffee cup intrigues me.

51 to 100 of 129 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Questions / That Mandatory Item Thread All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.