Level 2 Wand of Longstrider is basically a permanent +10 speed


Advice

251 to 300 of 327 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

Quote:
Taking the essence from one to power the other is completely different than "turn water into wood" because it hit it with a hammer.

Is it though? This is a world where a completely mundane blacksmith can create magical arms and armor and wondrous items simply because they are that good with a hammer. This is a world where the Philosopher's Stone is real.

Rysky wrote:
I'd like one on how you'd turn whiskey into ivory.

It involves a complicated alchemical process, but the long and short of it is heat, time, and bear fur.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

You're not turning the whiskey into the wand though, that's my point, you're using the whiskey to power the already existing wand.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Corrik wrote:
Quote:
Taking the essence from one to power the other is completely different than "turn water into wood" because it hit it with a hammer.

Is it though? This is a world where a completely mundane blacksmith can create magical arms and armor and wondrous items simply because they are that good with a hammer. This is a world where the Philosopher's Stone is real.

Rysky wrote:
I'd like one on how you'd turn whiskey into ivory.
It involves a complicated alchemical process, but the long and short of it is heat, time, and bear fur.

It's doesn't have to be realistic, it just has to be consistent is the thing.

You can't serve 4 glass of amaretto sour, smash it with the a normal hammer, and pull a magical wand out of the rubble.


Rysky wrote:
You're not turning the whiskey into the wand though, that's my point, you're using the whiskey to power the already existing wand.

In step 1 I disassembled the potion into it's crafting materials for use in another item.

In step two I used the materials for a potion to make a wand.

In both steps I added flavor and imagination necessary to create a realistic and plausible in game reason for why this works. In reality while this is nice at any table for someone able to do this - it shouldn't be necessary because the rules support the interaction. The only reason that someone has to go through hoops like this is when people look at rules as written and start applying silly concepts like 'common sense' - which any lawyer, cop, or judge will laugh at when you use the phrase, because there is nothing common about sense or what people agree on.

The nice thing about having rules is you can point at them and say 'they allow you to re-use an item to create another' and you can work with that as a baseline.

You may disallow it at your table - but I feel my example gives more than ample evidence why it's not unreasonable to imagine in a world where magic exists, and that's really all the justification you were using to say that the rules didn't work that way - the fact that you couldn't rationalize it.

Quote:
And then common sense and consistency kicks in, you can't distill amaretto sours that heal you into sticks of hickory that go pew-pew.

Common sense and consistency only apply if you are unable to imagine *why* it works. The rules don't really have to spell it out - there are numerous things in the rules that break if you limit the 'why' to what we could personally replicate in the real world.


Quote:
You're not turning the whiskey into the wand though, that's my point, you're using the whiskey to power the already existing wand.

That's all just fluff to describe the simple craft check he needs to make. You can needle in to that if you want, but all he has to do is add a few more made up lines to turn the dust in to wood. Which yes, is still perfectly viable. This is a world where a "scientist" can pour vials together until he gets a rock that can resurrect the dead and turn lead to gold. And you're like, how would you turn whiskey in to ivory?

Quote:

It's doesn't have to be realistic, it just has to be consistent is the thing.

You can't serve 4 glass of amaretto sour, smash it with the a normal hammer, and pull a magical wand out of the rubble.

Why not? You can take a normal guy, normal hammer, and normal metal, smash them together and get a magic sword. Has is that any less logical or consistent?

Those 4 glasses of amaretto sour are worth 100gp. If they are worth that gold, you make the craft check and fluff it as you want. It really isn't any different than grinding up a 100gp ruby for some magical nonsense. It's not like it makes any more "logical" sense for a ruby to make a magical wand than amaretto sours.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ckorik wrote:

Are you saying that the system is so tight that if a party doesn't play a specific way they are going to suffer for it?

That seems bad.

The game assumes certain items as math fixers. It's not nearly as many as PF1, but they exist and not taking them is a bad idea. You don't have to 'play' a specific way, but you sure do need certain items to be firing on all cylinders.

If you have a problem with that, you have a problem with...really, every edition of D&D and Pathfinder that's existed since at least AD&D 2nd Edition (though it's become much more of a thing from 3rd Ed. on). Which would be fine, there are lots of good games out there, but would sorta make one wonder why you're on this forum.

Exo-Guardians

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ckorik wrote:
Rysky wrote:
I'd like one on how you'd turn whiskey into ivory.

Sure:

Thesis on how to take the magical essence from 'whiskey of healing' into 'ivory wand of haste'

First - evaporate whiskey until nothing but the residue remains - take magically infused residue and combine with 4 parts Aqua Regia and 1 part fairy dust. Add to resulting mixture 3 parts elixir of nullification and take resulting particles to ivory wand.

Using magical apparatus #3 sand ivory down until it has a rough texture - now take a wet cloth and gather particles from first step - then rub into ivory wand. Coat ivory with shellac and polish. Now cast spell haste onto wand which has been imbued with magical essence that is now ready to accept new spell.

/done.

And where does the ivory wand come from? The magic residue I can accept, but where are you getting the actual physical ivory? That's the part of the "raw materials" you'd have to acquire separately imo.

And if a wand requires some kind magical essence to craft, how can you use the "raw materials" from a disassembled suit of mundane armor to craft it? You're not boiling down steel plates to get magical residue, presumbably.

Your example just further illustrates exactly how nonsensical freely-interchangeable raw materials would be.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Corrik wrote:
You can needle in to that if you want,
It's not me, it's the rules. You can't decraft magic items, and certain items have specific requirements, raw materials are called "raw" for reason.
Quote:
Those 4 glasses of amaretto sour are worth 100gp. If they are worth that gold, you make the craft check and fluff it as you want. It really isn't any different than grinding up a 100gp ruby for some magical nonsense. It's not like it makes any more "logical" sense for a ruby to make a magical wand than amaretto sours.

This is you trying to use the strictest personal reading of the rules completely devoid of lore and consistency, in the same way the GM could award your character a whole level worth of XP for doing jumping jacks.

Magic Items aren't instantly transmutable into coinage, and coinage isn't raw materials.


I notice you aren't asking how anymore, now that you've been provided multiple examples that use in-universe logic. But keep shifting the goalpost and throwing around insults, it really gives your argument weight.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Ckorik wrote:

Are you saying that the system is so tight that if a party doesn't play a specific way they are going to suffer for it?

That seems bad.

The game assumes certain items as math fixers. It's not nearly as many as PF1, but they exist and not taking them is a bad idea. You don't have to 'play' a specific way, but you sure do need certain items to be firing on all cylinders.

If you have a problem with that, you have a problem with...really, every edition of D&D and Pathfinder that's existed since at least AD&D 2nd Edition (though it's become much more of a thing from 3rd Ed. on). Which would be fine, there are lots of good games out there, but would sorta make one wonder why you're on this forum.

I'm sorry I thought the entire point of getting rid of stat items was to get rid of 'math fixers' - I haven't found the section in the core rulebook that stated 'you are expected to use X potions per level or you will fall behind'.

And no, not really consumables are ignored by a vast swath of people - so much so that it's an actual trope in video games (I beat the game with 500 potions - I guess the 'might need it' never came).

The only real use of consumables in past editions was to shore up weak areas of the party - (need to fly, need to breath underwater, need to turn someone into flesh, need to raise the dead). Outside of wands of healing I can't think of anything that was considered 'needed' to adventure - the multiple campaigns to level 20 I've played in and GM'd for must be broken.

I did play a 'batman' character once that used tons of consumables - and it was fun - but it was a trope and a specific playstyle.


Saros Palanthios wrote:


And where does the ivory wand come from? The magic residue I can accept, but where are you getting the actual physical ivory? That's the part of the "raw materials" you'd have to acquire separately imo.

And if a wand requires some kind magical essence to craft, how can you use the "raw materials" from a disassembled suit of mundane armor to craft it? You're not boiling down steel plates to get magical residue, presumbably.

Your example just further illustrates exactly how nonsensical freely-interchangeable raw materials would be.

How does a stone figure turn into a bird?


Saros Palanthios wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
Rysky wrote:
I'd like one on how you'd turn whiskey into ivory.

Sure:

Thesis on how to take the magical essence from 'whiskey of healing' into 'ivory wand of haste'

First - evaporate whiskey until nothing but the residue remains - take magically infused residue and combine with 4 parts Aqua Regia and 1 part fairy dust. Add to resulting mixture 3 parts elixir of nullification and take resulting particles to ivory wand.

Using magical apparatus #3 sand ivory down until it has a rough texture - now take a wet cloth and gather particles from first step - then rub into ivory wand. Coat ivory with shellac and polish. Now cast spell haste onto wand which has been imbued with magical essence that is now ready to accept new spell.

/done.

And where does the ivory wand come from? The magic residue I can accept, but where are you getting the actual physical ivory? That's the part of the "raw materials" you'd have to acquire separately imo.

And if a wand requires some kind magical essence to craft, how can you use the "raw materials" from a disassembled suit of mundane armor to craft it? You're not boiling down steel plates to get magical residue, presumbably.

Your example just further illustrates exactly how nonsensical freely-interchangeable raw materials would be.

Wands have no specific wood requirements, so you are needling at fluff. The answer is more fluff. I got it from that tree over there. Now I craft my wand. Good thing I had those potions or just any old stick wouldn't have done.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Corrik wrote:
I notice you aren't asking how anymore, now that you've been provided multiple examples that use in-universe logic. But keep shifting the goalpost and throwing around insults, it really gives your argument weight.

Because the examples provided don't make sense, nor are they backed up by the rules.

And pointing out you're trying to go asin't rules and reason isn't an insult.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Corrik wrote:
Saros Palanthios wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
Rysky wrote:
I'd like one on how you'd turn whiskey into ivory.

Sure:

Thesis on how to take the magical essence from 'whiskey of healing' into 'ivory wand of haste'

First - evaporate whiskey until nothing but the residue remains - take magically infused residue and combine with 4 parts Aqua Regia and 1 part fairy dust. Add to resulting mixture 3 parts elixir of nullification and take resulting particles to ivory wand.

Using magical apparatus #3 sand ivory down until it has a rough texture - now take a wet cloth and gather particles from first step - then rub into ivory wand. Coat ivory with shellac and polish. Now cast spell haste onto wand which has been imbued with magical essence that is now ready to accept new spell.

/done.

And where does the ivory wand come from? The magic residue I can accept, but where are you getting the actual physical ivory? That's the part of the "raw materials" you'd have to acquire separately imo.

And if a wand requires some kind magical essence to craft, how can you use the "raw materials" from a disassembled suit of mundane armor to craft it? You're not boiling down steel plates to get magical residue, presumbably.

Your example just further illustrates exactly how nonsensical freely-interchangeable raw materials would be.

Wands have no specific wood requirements, so you are needling at fluff. The answer is more fluff. I got it from that tree over there. Now I craft my wand. Good thing I had those potions or just any old stick wouldn't have done.

The rules call for raw materials. Potions are not raw materials.


Quote:
Because the examples provided don't make sense, nor are they backed up by the rules.

They make sense in universe. As much as normal person, with a normal hammer and normal materials can make a magic sword in universe. That's the part you are willfully ignoring.

Quote:
The rules call for raw materials. Potions are not raw materials.

They are after you disassemble them, which explicitly leaves you with raw materials.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Rysky: I get it. Your game is more fun when you can’t disassemble Magic Items down to their atoms and rearrange them. But, are you going to play in Corrik’s or Chorik’s games? If not, what does it matter if in their game Magic Items can be reduced to their atoms?

Seriously guys this conversation has devolved to “bush uh” and “yeah eh”. Why keep arguing? You understand the other persin’s Viewpoint. No one is going to change their mind. So move on.

Liberty's Edge

Ckorik wrote:
I'm sorry I thought the entire point of getting rid of stat items was to get rid of 'math fixers' - I haven't found the section in the core rulebook that stated 'you are expected to use X potions per level or you will fall behind'.

There isn't one. But I was referring to selling non-consumables in the post you quoted. My interpretation (and I could've been wrong) when Unicore said their PCs would sell 'anything that didn't fulfill an immediate need' is that this probably included Skill boost items, which actually are pretty essential.

Ckorik wrote:

And no, not really consumables are ignored by a vast swath of people - so much so that it's an actual trope in video games (I beat the game with 500 potions - I guess the 'might need it' never came).

The only real use of consumables in past editions was to shore up weak areas of the party - (need to fly, need to breath underwater, need to turn someone into flesh, need to raise the dead). Outside of wands of healing I can't think of anything that was considered 'needed' to adventure - the multiple campaigns to level 20 I've played in and GM'd for must be broken.

I did play a 'batman' character once that used tons of consumables - and it was fun - but it was a trope and a specific playstyle.

All of this seems to be under the misapprehension I was saying consumables were really necessary. I was not.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
I'm sorry I thought the entire point of getting rid of stat items was to get rid of 'math fixers' - I haven't found the section in the core rulebook that stated 'you are expected to use X potions per level or you will fall behind'.

There isn't one. But I was referring to selling non-consumables in the post you quoted. My interpretation (and I could've been wrong) when Unicore said their PCs would sell 'anything that didn't fulfill an immediate need' is that this probably included Skill boost items, which actually are pretty essential.

Ckorik wrote:

And no, not really consumables are ignored by a vast swath of people - so much so that it's an actual trope in video games (I beat the game with 500 potions - I guess the 'might need it' never came).

The only real use of consumables in past editions was to shore up weak areas of the party - (need to fly, need to breath underwater, need to turn someone into flesh, need to raise the dead). Outside of wands of healing I can't think of anything that was considered 'needed' to adventure - the multiple campaigns to level 20 I've played in and GM'd for must be broken.

I did play a 'batman' character once that used tons of consumables - and it was fun - but it was a trope and a specific playstyle.

All of this seems to be under the misapprehension I was saying consumables were really necessary. I was not.

Ok - you had me actually very worried - I don't math geek the rules like you and I hadn't considered consumables 'needed' - seriously what I read was actually rather jarring to me so I appreciate this clarification.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Corrik wrote:
Quote:
Because the examples provided don't make sense, nor are they backed up by the rules.

They make sense in universe. As much as normal person, with a normal hammer and normal materials can make a magic sword in universe. That's the part you are willfully ignoring.

Quote:
The rules call for raw materials. Potions are not raw materials.
They are after you disassemble them, which explicitly leaves you with raw materials.

I’m not ignoring, just disagreeing.

Which you can’t do by the rules.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Rysky: I get it. Your game is more fun when you can’t disassemble Magic Items down to their atoms and rearrange them.

Since this is the entire crux of the issue, are there Disassembling rules in the book?

I’ve been looking but haven’t found any.


Which you can explicitly do by the rules. Disassembling an item uses the craft activity, an items parts are worth half it's price in raw materials. No where does it state that these raw materials act any different than others nor that you are not allowed to craft with them. Merely that you can't reassemble an item with it's disassembled parts unless you have the formula.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ckorik wrote:
Ok - you had me actually very worried - I don't math geek the rules like you and I hadn't considered consumables 'needed' - seriously what I read was actually rather jarring to me so I appreciate this clarification.

Gotcha.

To be clear, the game's math assumes the following items:

-Appropriate level weapon with appropriate Rune of Striking (well, if you're making weapon attacks anyway).
-Appropriate level armor with the Save boosting Rune (Bracers of Armor count for this).
-Apex Item from level 17-18 onward.
-Skill boosting items for the Skills you want to be really good at.

Nothing else is assumed, or not by the math anyway.


Ravingdork wrote:
Doktor Weasel wrote:
And as for alchemists and consumables... Yeah, the consumable pricing is just absurd. The only reason to ever use any higher level alchemical items is if you have an alchemist in the party making them for free. Non-infused alchemical items are just a waste of money.

It's been mathematically shown that there is no such thing in P2E as free crafting.

You still have to pay half. And even if you worked the full length of time to not have to pay the other half, the money saved vs time spent is exactly equal to the money earned and time spent earning an income.

Well Ravingdork after reading the crafting rules really closely - and reading through this thread - I think I found that this statement is wrong for a specific thing:

When crafting - you can supply 0 'raw materials' and 0 money - and you can earn your 'income' at full level while doing it - even in a desert hovel. The 'earn an income' activity specifies that the max you can earn depends on the place you are in - making high level tasks require extraordinary places to work.

Crafting doesn't. You "This amount is determined using Table 4–2: Income Earned (page 236), based on your proficiency rank in Crafting
and using your own level instead of a task level" - so you use full proficiency and your level to determine your "earnings" - not the level of the town or place you are in.

So crafting - in a way - is the only way you can gauruntee full value for your downtime earnings.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Corrik wrote:
Which you can explicitly do by the rules. Disassembling an item uses the craft activity, an items parts are worth half it's price in raw materials. No where does it state that these raw materials act any different than others nor that you are not allowed to craft with them. Merely that you can't reassemble an item with it's disassembled parts unless you have the formula.

Ah, no wonder I couldn’t find it, Formulas is its own half a page section.

Quote:
The item's disassembled parts are worth half its Price in raw materials and can't be reassembled unless you successfully reverse-engineer the formula or acquire the formula another way. Reassembling the item from the formula works just like Crafting it from scratch; you use the disassembled parts as the necessary raw materials.

Well this is interesting then.

Shadow Lodge

It's pretty awkward that disassembling into raw materials is only mentioned in the reverse-engineering section.

Exo-Guardians

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

Ah, no wonder I couldn’t find it, Formulas is its own half a page section.

Quote:
The item's disassembled parts are worth half its Price in raw materials and can't be reassembled unless you successfully reverse-engineer the formula or acquire the formula another way. Reassembling the item from the formula works just like Crafting it from scratch; you use the disassembled parts as the necessary raw materials.
Well this is interesting then.

Before you get excited-- note that the text says you can reassemble (not Craft) the item you previously disassembled, using its own disassembled parts as the necessary raw materials. Nowhere is it stated or even implied that disassembled parts from one item can be used to Craft an entirely different item.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Saros Palanthios wrote:
Rysky wrote:

Ah, no wonder I couldn’t find it, Formulas is its own half a page section.

Quote:
The item's disassembled parts are worth half its Price in raw materials and can't be reassembled unless you successfully reverse-engineer the formula or acquire the formula another way. Reassembling the item from the formula works just like Crafting it from scratch; you use the disassembled parts as the necessary raw materials.
Well this is interesting then.
Before you get excited-- note that the text says you can reassemble (not Craft) the item you previously disassembled, using its own disassembled parts as the necessary raw materials. Nowhere is it stated or even implied that disassembled parts from one item can be used to Craft an entirely different item.

Yep-yep, my position really hasn’t changed.


Saros Palanthios wrote:
Rysky wrote:

Ah, no wonder I couldn’t find it, Formulas is its own half a page section.

Quote:
The item's disassembled parts are worth half its Price in raw materials and can't be reassembled unless you successfully reverse-engineer the formula or acquire the formula another way. Reassembling the item from the formula works just like Crafting it from scratch; you use the disassembled parts as the necessary raw materials.
Well this is interesting then.
Before you get excited-- note that the text says you can reassemble (not Craft) the item you previously disassembled, using its own disassembled parts as the necessary raw materials. Nowhere is it stated or even implied that disassembled parts from one item can be used to Craft an entirely different item.

It explicitly states that an item's disassembled parts are worth 50% it's value in Raw Material. It then gives no specification that these raw materials are any different than any other raw material. Therefore there is no reason to state that you can use them to craft an entirely different item, as you can per the craft rules with Raw Materials.

*Edit*

Allow me to phrase another way. Please point to the rules that states you can't use these Raw Materials to craft other items. As per the normal crafting rules, you can, so we'll need a specific rule to overrule the general rule.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's a permissive system.

It does seem like the authors intended that these disassembled parts can either be reassembled by either reverse-engineering it or through a formula....OR, as a consolation prize, you can sell them, obstensibly so that someone can else can use them to make that same item (although once sold the PC generally doesn't care about what happens to them).

It's telling that the only place turning items into raw materials is mentioned is in the Reverse Engineering section and nowhere else.


Rysky wrote:
Corrik wrote:
And being able to use a pile of raw materials as an abstract has never caused an issue before either.
No. It's what Starfinder uses. But that's not what's being asked for here. Turning magical mountain dew into magical ivory stick that shoots fireballs doesn't make sense.
Quote:
In what way is it "common sense" to not be able to transfer magical energy from one type to another? Again, not making sense in our world has literally no bearing on the game world.
Taking the essence from one to power the other is completely different than "turn water into wood" because it hit it with a hammer.

"I separate out the potions, pick up a random stick, and rub the magical goo into it for four days"

In this way, you make a wand out of the potion raw materials.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

It is written kinda wonky, and in an out of the way spot (rather than in the crafting Skill or at the start of the Crafting chapter), so I guess it’s a question of whether it’s intentional/intended that you can use the disassembled parts from a “failure” to craft completely different items.

I’m standing by you can’t (going by “too good to be true” rule and that you only wind up with the raw materials by failing) but even if a Dev states it was intentional I wouldn’t allow it my games or heavily limit what you could use them for, but also acknowledge I would be using a houserule at that point.

Exo-Guardians

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Corrik wrote:
It explicitly states that an item's disassembled parts are worth 50% it's value in Raw Material.

No, it does not say that. It says "The item’s disassembled parts are worth half its Price in raw materials and can’t be reassembled unless you successfully reverse‑engineer the formula or acquire the formula another way."

Not "an item" or "any item", but the specific item you previously disassembled for the purpose of reverse-engineering its formula.

Corrik wrote:
Allow me to phrase another way. Please point to the rules that states you can't use these Raw Materials to craft other items.

Please point to the rule that says you can't spontaneously summon a shower of gold coins every time your character snaps their fingers. Right, there isn't one, because there's no need to explicitly ban every silly thing someone might want to do.

Corrik wrote:
As per the normal crafting rules, you can, so we'll need a specific rule to overrule the general rule.

Again, no. The rules for the Crafting skill in the "Skills" chapter don't say anything about disassembling items, and the extensive Crafting rules in the "Crafting & Treasure" chapter don't say a word about it either.

The only place disassembly of items is ever mentioned is in the section of the Equipment chapter about reverse-engineering formulas.

That section says you can disassemble an item to see how it works, then reassemble it again afterward if you gain the formula. No more, no less. Trying to extrapolate from that to an implied general rule that any item can be broken down to its atoms and re-synthesized into a different item is an enormous leap of logic.


Quote:

No, it does not say that. It says "The item’s disassembled parts are worth half its Price in raw materials and can’t be reassembled unless you successfully reverse‑engineer the formula or acquire the formula another way."

Not "an item" or "any item", but the specific item you previously disassembled for the purpose of reverse-engineering its formula.

Again, the rule states the disassembled parts are raw materials. It does not state that the disassembled parts are worth half the items GP.

They are raw materials, therefor the rules for raw materials apply for them unless as specific rule calls out that they don't. Please point to the rule that states raw materials gained from disassembling parts works differently than other raw materials.

If the rules simply stated the disassembled parts are worth half the value of the item, you would be right. They don't.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Corrik wrote:
Please point to the rule that states raw materials gained from disassembling parts works differently than other raw materials.

Can you point to the rule that says they don’t?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Corrik wrote:
Please point to the rule that states raw materials gained from disassembling parts works differently than other raw materials.
Can you point to the rule that says they don’t?

That's not how this works, general rules apply unless a specific rule overrules them. You do not need a specific rule to confirm that general rules still apply. Here are the craft rules, and here are the disassemble rules. The rules clearly state that dissembling items gets you raw materials and that you can use raw materials to craft items.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Corrik wrote:
Quote:

No, it does not say that. It says "The item’s disassembled parts are worth half its Price in raw materials and can’t be reassembled unless you successfully reverse‑engineer the formula or acquire the formula another way."

Not "an item" or "any item", but the specific item you previously disassembled for the purpose of reverse-engineering its formula.

Again, the rule states the disassembled parts are raw materials. It does not state that the disassembled parts are worth half the items GP.

They are raw materials, therefor the rules for raw materials apply for them unless as specific rule calls out that they don't. Please point to the rule that states raw materials gained from disassembling parts works differently than other raw materials.

If the rules simply stated the disassembled parts are worth half the value of the item, you would be right. They don't.

And if they were "just" raw materials, there would be zero need for this sentence:

Quote:
Reassembling the item from the formula works just like Crafting it from scratch; you use the disassembled parts as the necessary raw materials.

If the reader has a formula and raw materials worth half the price of the item, just tell the reader to use standard crafting rules instead of this sentence that says similar but much more specific.


Quote:
And if they were "just" raw materials, there would be zero need for this sentence:

And if they weren't raw materials, and you couldn't craft with them, there would be zero need to use the term "raw materials". You would merely state an item's dissembled parts are worth half it's price. However, they are specifically called out as raw materials and then are given no specific rules to differentiate them from other raw materials.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Corrik wrote:
Quote:
And if they were "just" raw materials, there would be zero need for this sentence:
And if they weren't raw materials, and you couldn't craft with them, there would be zero need to use the term "raw materials". You would merely state an item's dissembled parts are worth half it's price. However, they are specifically called out as raw materials and then are given no specific rules to differentiate them from other raw materials.

Why does the final sentence exist? Why is it giving the reader specific permission to do something that the reader is already allowed to do in general?


Serum wrote:
Corrik wrote:
Quote:
And if they were "just" raw materials, there would be zero need for this sentence:
And if they weren't raw materials, and you couldn't craft with them, there would be zero need to use the term "raw materials". You would merely state an item's dissembled parts are worth half it's price. However, they are specifically called out as raw materials and then are given no specific rules to differentiate them from other raw materials.
Why does the final sentence exist? Why is it giving the reader special permission to do something that the reader is already allowed to do?

It's merely specifying that rebuilding the item works the same as crafting it, and that you can't merely put it back together. It is in no way granting special permission. Under your ruling why are they called out as raw materials if they do not count as raw materials?

Shadow Lodge

Corrik wrote:
Serum wrote:
Corrik wrote:
Quote:
And if they were "just" raw materials, there would be zero need for this sentence:
And if they weren't raw materials, and you couldn't craft with them, there would be zero need to use the term "raw materials". You would merely state an item's dissembled parts are worth half it's price. However, they are specifically called out as raw materials and then are given no specific rules to differentiate them from other raw materials.
Why does the final sentence exist? Why is it giving the reader special permission to do something that the reader is already allowed to do?
It's merely specifying that rebuilding the item works the same as crafting it, and that you can't merely put it back together. It is in no way granting special permission. Under your ruling why are they called out as raw materials if they do not count as raw materials?

Maybe to give the reader slightly more flavour on what they're selling, maybe to reinforce that the parts are still useful and can be reassembled to remake the item.

On the other hand, there's no need to talk about rebuilding the item at all if it can just be created from scratch using the same "raw materials" and the standard Crafting process. This is introducing new terminology for zero purpose.


Serum wrote:
Corrik wrote:
Serum wrote:
Corrik wrote:
Quote:
And if they were "just" raw materials, there would be zero need for this sentence:
And if they weren't raw materials, and you couldn't craft with them, there would be zero need to use the term "raw materials". You would merely state an item's dissembled parts are worth half it's price. However, they are specifically called out as raw materials and then are given no specific rules to differentiate them from other raw materials.
Why does the final sentence exist? Why is it giving the reader special permission to do something that the reader is already allowed to do?
It's merely specifying that rebuilding the item works the same as crafting it, and that you can't merely put it back together. It is in no way granting special permission. Under your ruling why are they called out as raw materials if they do not count as raw materials?

Maybe to give the reader slightly more flavour on what they're selling, maybe to reinforce that the parts are still useful and can be reassembled to remake the item.

On the other hand, there's no need to talk about rebuilding the item at all if it can just be created from scratch using the same "raw materials" and the standard Crafting process. This is introducing new terminology for zero purpose.

No, what there is no need for is to state raw components if they are not raw components. Stating that it's just simple fluff and not meant to be regarded as a game term is nothing short of silly.

And yes there is a need to specify the rules. Without specifying it, you can use the Raw Materials to make another of the item. However, by stating that reassembling is the same as crafting, they are confirming that a craft check is needed, and that the item can not be off handily reassembled.

I'm going to need more than "They didn't mean raw materials, that's just fluff" for your ruling.

Exo-Guardians

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Chapter 1 says the following under "Format of Rules Elements":

Quote:

The names of specifc statistics, skills, feats, actions, and some other mechanical

elements in Pathfnder are capitalized. This way, when you see the statement “a Strike
targets Armor Class,” you know that both Strike and Armor Class are referring
to rules.

The phrase "raw materials" is never capitalized like that, anywhere in the book. Nor is it defined anywhere, nor is it listed in the Equipment tables, nor the Index at the back of the book.

This indicates the when the rules refer to "raw materials", they simply mean the common English definition of the words.

If there were a substance specific to Pathfinder called "Raw Materials", consisting of a proto-goo that could be transformed into any substance or item, the rules would define that term, and capitalize it, at least once.

They don't.


Raw materials isn't capitalized anywhere on the crafting page either. Therefore, we have no reason to believe the the phrase means anything different on the two pages. Therefore "raw materials" gained from going in to town and "raw materials" gained from dissembling are treated the same.

Exo-Guardians

Corrik wrote:
Raw materials isn't capitalized anywhere on the crafting page either. Therefore, we have no reason to believe the the phrase means anything different on the two pages. Therefore "raw materials" gained from going in to town and "raw materials" gained from dissembling are treated the same.

I agree, they should be treated the same-- either all raw materials are freely interchangeable (as you and others believe), or all raw materials are particular to the items they comprise (as I and others believe).

In any event, I've posted the question in the stickied "Ask the Devs" thread over on the Rules forum. Hopefully they'll take up this issue at the next monthly Twitch stream, and provide some clarification.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Saros Palanthios wrote:
Corrik wrote:
Raw materials isn't capitalized anywhere on the crafting page either. Therefore, we have no reason to believe the the phrase means anything different on the two pages. Therefore "raw materials" gained from going in to town and "raw materials" gained from dissembling are treated the same.

I agree, they should be treated the same-- either all raw materials are freely interchangeable (as you and others believe), or all raw materials are particular to the items they comprise (as I and others believe).

In any event, I've posted the question in the stickied "Ask the Devs" thread over on the Rules forum. Hopefully they'll take up this issue at the next monthly Twitch stream, and provide some clarification.

Cool beans, one can only hope. I certainly don't want to be 5 years out wondering what raw materials are.


I have a hard time believing that 'raw materials' would need to be tracked specifically as to what item they are for - the intent of using such a generic term is to 'gamify' the crafting process and not get bogged down in the weeds.

This is like getting a 'component pouch' and not having to specify that it has bat guano in it for fireball. Either you abstract 'raw materials' or you don't - but if you don't then you need to identify every specific material and how they interact.

Saying the 'they are specific raw materials and can only be used for that item' still doesn't fly - if I dissassemble a suit of armor - then you are telling me I don't have metal to make a sword? Can a staff be made into a wand? Can the glass from a potion be made into a glass pendant of luck?

All of that is great for you 'your game' but is way to specific to make rules around. These questions are what you end up with if you start tracking 'raw materials' down to the specific item instead of by the abstract.

All of this ignores the fact (of course) that you need 0 'raw materials' to craft as long as you want to spend enough time at it. The rules of course saying that if you wanted to make a common item, then the rules support you having any and all material to do so - because the game expects common items to be common. Outside of the GM flat out saying no - which is always a valid choice to anything - but at that point it's presumably being done for story reasons - and not because 'the rules' dissallow it.


Ckorik wrote:

I have a hard time believing that 'raw materials' would need to be tracked specifically as to what item they are for - the intent of using such a generic term is to 'gamify' the crafting process and not get bogged down in the weeds.

Right, every manufacturer just puts in an order at the raw materials store, they don't worry about specifics.

It's weird to me the extremely confident pronunciations in this thread based on common sense economics, crafting, and business sense that show none at all.


Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
vagabond_666 wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:


Most people in the world don't need to gain the effects of a consumable multiple times in a year and instead keep the items on hand for rare situations. Those who do need the effect of a consumable on a regular basis and aren't so wealthy as to be able to throw money away, buy the permanent magic item version and learn how to activate it.

John, I'm not sure why Shroud has wandered off into this area of discussion with you.

The in setting justifications and what the NPCs are doing and all that jazz are secondary to the main point.

This is a game about the player characters. The player characters have the resources they have and the requirements that they have.

Based on those factors and the price of consumables, no player in their right mind will buy consumables, or do anything with consumables they find except sell them and buy permanent items instead.

As a result the entire consumables section of the core rule book, and most likely any future published materials regarding consumbles, are just wasted ink.

It doesn't matter how you try and explain the existence of something if the players are going to deliberately avoid having anything to do with it, because it isn't worth their while.

That assumes all magic items are available everywhere, which just seems crazy to me. I realize there are games that play that way, but It just doesn’t really feel like DnD to me. Though admittedly, I’m straying into a different topic. But if someone is playing a everything, always available campaign, then I would imagine they would need to tweak things accordingly. This thread seems like it will help with that.

Also, if these permanent items are available and are so sought after, seems to me the seller would jack the price sky high.

I didn’t catch this, but are the consumables selling for, at least, half price?

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

298 posts arguing over something so far removed from the OP that most people would have forgotten the original point (Longstrider is insanely good 2nd level spell <edit> on a wand <end edit>for many builds with a low price point)

Seriously, potions appear to be meant as treasure to keep ONLY if you will need that particular ability a handful of times and will never use it (e.g. Protection for Powerful Undead Lich Mage to offer a hypothetical example). In that case, making a wand is a bad use of money. As much as people want to adjust the rarity rules, they are as much a part of the game as the other rules

251 to 300 of 327 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Advice / Level 2 Wand of Longstrider is basically a permanent +10 speed All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.