What happened to the Traveler's Any-Tool?


Rules Discussion


1 person marked this as a favorite.

PF1 Traveler's Any-Tool 250 gp, 2 pounds. Ultimate Equipment pg. 323
"This implement at first seems to be nothing but a 12-inch iron bar lined with small plates and spikes. It can be folded, twisted, hinged, and bent, to form almost any known tool. Hammers, shovels, even a block and tackle (without rope) are possible. It can duplicate any tool the wielder can clearly visualize that contains only limited moving parts, such as a pair of scissors, but not a handloom. It cannot be used to replace missing or broken parts of machines or vehicles unless a mundane tool would have done the job just as well."

It was something to put in a backpack and if you needed a shovel, pick, scissors, pliers, ect... you had it...

Now 200gp, 1 bulk, item 6 and "You imagine a specific simple tool, and the any-tool transforms into it. (Usually, you can choose from a tool listed in Chapter 6). This transforms the wooden portion into any haft and the metal caps into spades, hammer heads, or the like, allowing for most basic tools but nothing more complex."

So the price jumped from 25gp with the new standard to 200gp... It's cheaper/easier to get a bag of holding I [75gp, 1 bulk, level 4] and buy every tool and put it in the bag and use the same number of actions to pull out the tools instead of transforming... The items makes no sense at it's current cost/level.


Oh hey it's that thing you were talking about. Maybe it has something to with skills being more powerful and magic trying to have less influence over them? IDK is their any other similar items that costs went up? It doesn't seem OP at level 6. Now at level 1 it is obviously too strongk.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
Oh hey it's that thing you were talking about. Maybe it has something to with skills being more powerful and magic trying to have less influence over them? IDK is their any other similar items that costs went up? It doesn't seem OP at level 6. Now at level 1 it is obviously too strongk.

For me, it seems out of line with their own pricing when you can replicate the item with existing items at a lower level and cost. The bag of holding I is only 75gp and I can't imagine collecting all the "most basic tools" covered by the All-Tool exceeds 125 gp and 25 bulk. The All-Tool doesn't even save on actions so I can't see how the price/item level is justified. It's the same level, and just 30gp cheaper, than the Primeval Mistletoe [shillelagh every 10 min! and 1/day tree shape!]...

IMO, it seems someone overestimated the cost/usefulness of mundane/ordinary tools: level 3, 60-70gp is about as high as it should be IMO.


Yup. You are right. Bag of holding could indeed hold pretty much anything an any tool can transform into.

Real easy houserule: Traveller's any tool is a level 4 item at 75 gp but cannot be used to transform into a level 2 item or higher.

Not sure if the traveller's any tool can currently transform into a level 3 tool (I'd allow it). If it could that would justify the cost and level hence why I disallow it in the above house rules version.


I figure that extra gold just lets you win any argument when the GM says you can't turn it into a (hand-cranked) drill press, or a lathe, or a loom, or something absurd.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
I figure that extra gold just lets you win any argument when the GM says you can't turn it into a (hand-cranked) drill press, or a lathe, or a loom, or something absurd.

I think they covered that with "allowing for most basic tools but nothing more complex." IMO, the basic description wouldn't cover any of them, hence my head-scratching over the price.

John Lynch 106 wrote:

Yup. You are right. Bag of holding could indeed hold pretty much anything an any tool can transform into.

Real easy houserule: Traveller's any tool is a level 4 item at 75 gp but cannot be used to transform into a level 2 item or higher.

Not sure if the traveller's any tool can currently transform into a level 3 tool (I'd allow it). If it could that would justify the cost and level hence why I disallow it in the above house rules version.

If it covers elite/complex tools, then I'd fully retract my statement: it's worth the price then. I'd however want the item to clearly state that that's what it can do. For myself, when I read "allowing for most basic tools but nothing more complex" I assumed they meant the level 0 tools in the equipment section.


Of course you want it more specific :P

As GM I would happily include either my house rules version or the book version with higher level tools being possible.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Eh, the any-tool was always just a poor man's version of the utilitarian rod, anyway.

It being my single favorite magic item in 1e, I really want to know when we are getting an update of that bad boy. :P


John Lynch 106 wrote:
Of course you want it more specific :P

LOL Well yeah. I see enough variety in DM having things spelled out is a great help. As/is I might have one DM that allows elite tools and looms while another might not allow shears [not "a tool listed in Chapter 6" and doesn't list moving parts]. That's a mighty big table variance I'd rather not have if it can be helped.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Unfortunately it can’t be helped. The playtest is over and the book is published. We have what we have. Further threads won’t really change the book to the degree you want it changed.


John Lynch 106 wrote:
Unfortunately it can’t be helped. The playtest is over and the book is published. We have what we have. Further threads won’t really change the book to the degree you want it changed.

I don't see why it can't help: I not suggesting a huge change. They print errata, post FAQ, ect. Heck, even an authors comment is worth something as it's something to point to intent.

I don't see it a bridge too far: IMO, it CAN be helped. It'll just be up to them is they want to. If nothing else, I'm sure they are going to HAVE to make a comment for PFS as getting free bonuses to skill checks at one table and not at another would be an issue.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Good luck in your crusade to get everything spelled out. I’m just going to play the game myself and try to enjoy it.


John Lynch 106 wrote:
Good luck in your crusade to get everything spelled out. I’m just going to play the game myself and try to enjoy it.

You play a stable game with set players right? If so, you can do that. When you play with different people and Dm's all the time, "just going to play the game" takes a WHOLE lot more time and effort to have to reinvent the wheel every time to fill in all the "ask your DM" holes. It's hard to "try to enjoy it" if you, the other players and the dm are all on different pages with how things are meant to work.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
You play a stable game with set players right? If so, you can do that. When you play with different people and Dm's all the time, "just going to play the game" takes a WHOLE lot more time and effort to have to reinvent the wheel every time to fill in all the "ask your DM" holes. It's hard to "try to enjoy it" if you, the other players and the dm are all on different pages with how things are meant to work.

No. I don’t anymore. I’ve moved cities so I’ll now be DMing for a new group. And yes. You’ve gone on at length about how awful your situation is and how Pathfinder is the worst game for you to play because of it. If I was you I’d spend my time being a DM rather than griping about every ambiguity. But you do you. I hope you eventually get some joy from how you choose to spend your spare time.

[EDIT]: I say the above not to give you a hard time, but because you seem so unhappy literally anytime I see you post. I hope that pointing out the absurdity of your behaviour you might examine how it impacts your happiness and whether you are positively or negatively contributing towards your happiness.

Your crusade will fail. You will not get every ambiguity removed from a published book. I’d be surprised if you get even a significant amount of things clarified.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

IMHO the travelers any tool was a silly item to start with, and I won't cry to see it effectively priced out of existence.

I'm more concerned that Paizo didn't list a set of travelling alchemist's tools that an alchemist PC could actually carry and use without being encumbered.


Funny enough that is how this thread was started and I mentioned the idea of an alchemist stone that could act as some of the gear an alchemist needed with less bulk.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Wheldrake wrote:

IMHO the travelers any tool was a silly item to start with, and I won't cry to see it effectively priced out of existence.

I'm more concerned that Paizo didn't list a set of travelling alchemist's tools that an alchemist PC could actually carry and use without being encumbered.

I'm almost certain that Alchemist bulk is going to get errata'd, on account of Fumbus' bulk being wildly wrong. Most likely, the intended numbers make Fumbus' bulk accurate, which means a couple points of bulk are coming off the Alchemist gear.

Liberty's Edge

MaxAstro wrote:
I'm almost certain that Alchemist bulk is going to get errata'd, on account of Fumbus' bulk being wildly wrong. Most likely, the intended numbers make Fumbus' bulk accurate, which means a couple points of bulk are coming off the Alchemist gear.

This is my hope as well, though I find the silence on this topic when they've admitted so many similar errors to be a bit worrying. That's probably just my paranoia kicking in, though.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
I'm almost certain that Alchemist bulk is going to get errata'd, on account of Fumbus' bulk being wildly wrong. Most likely, the intended numbers make Fumbus' bulk accurate, which means a couple points of bulk are coming off the Alchemist gear.
This is my hope as well, though I find the silence on this topic when they've admitted so many similar errors to be a bit worrying. That's probably just my paranoia kicking in, though.

I think alchemist bulk qualifies as second-wave nice-to-have errata. They've made a point that the first round of changes are the more game-breaking or universally relevant changes like removing extra feats, ability scores for DCs, and the adventurer's pack.


It's not just Traveler's Any Tool I'm worried about.

There's a LOT of interesting stuff deep in PF1's gear catalouge that I wonder if they will make the jump or not on account of the stronger skills and the lowering of just outright +s.

Yeah yeah, CLW wands all day err day; didn't care. My PF1 side healer used a feat or two along side Bloodblocks to get the job one.

Now this isn't me harshing on PF2(For once), I just don't know how they're going to translate some of these items over. Even nerfing them might not be enough(0r too much to make them actually usable outside of loot drops).

Though hmm, rather than just raw numbers maybe some of these items can bump up the Proficiency during use? Or maybe throw in a reroll? I dunno, there's hopefully something they can do.


John Lynch 106 wrote:
absurdity

*shrug* I don't think I'll ever see what's absurd is asking for a rule to actually involve a ruling past 'ask your DM'.

John Lynch 106 wrote:
Your crusade will fail. You will not get every ambiguity removed from a published book. I’d be surprised if you get even a significant amount of things clarified.

If I get one single solitary thing clarified it wouldn't be a failure: that'd move then into degrees of success.

John Lynch 106 wrote:
If I was you I’d spend my time being a DM rather than griping about every ambiguity.

Here's the thing: that would solve NOTHING! I can't advertise a game as 'running by the standard rules' when so many things are based on my whim: players have no idea what my rulings on those items would be and may have different ideas on how things works as their last DM and I may not see eye to eye on rulings. With new DM's and players a given, the 'ask your DM' format actively works against you and makes it harder to get on the same page.

So I don't see how being a Dm or players would alter my enjoyment of the game as it stands.


You have the most bizarre requirements for playing role play games I’ve ever seen. I thought it was you not trusting DMs. Now it’s clear it’s much deeper then that. I hope whatever you do you manage to find enjoyment in it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I am going to miss the old Any-Tool. Combined with a Robe of Infinite Twine and attached to an Immovable Rod you could put together a horizontal or vertical block and tackle pretty much anywhere. Good times.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Unfortunately it can’t be helped. The playtest is over and the book is published. We have what we have. Further threads won’t really change the book to the degree you want it changed.

Considering the number of problems that were brought up in numerous threads (alchemist fast alchemy needing a free hand but also needing an alchemist kit, which requires two hand as an example) I am rather disappointed in this aspect of 2E.


This seems just like the odd ruling for alignment based abilities.

It was written and then not thought of again as things in the book were changed and updated. No one gave the final draft a complete read. I imagine the anytool will be changed.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / What happened to the Traveler's Any-Tool? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.