| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unequivocal? No.
There isn't really even a consensus.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rules state that Etching Runes follows the same rules as Crafting Items except where it says it's different, and requiring certain feats to craft certain items isn't an exception. Neither are formulas or rarity by RAW.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I'd agree with RD here in that there isn't a real universal consensus but that doesn't mean that one side of the discussion has more weight behind it.
From a RAW perspective, I would have to say that I personally feel that this is an absolute "Yes, you need the feat" but from a quality of life perspective, I can certainly see why many people would WANT to argue the opposite. In other words, I think asking an average GM to approve transfers without MC would be an uphill battle though it really doesn't "hurt" the game much to allow it beyond saving a bit of coin every few character levels per martial PC.
Hmm... This is an interesting question.
In Starfinder, the rules for Weapon Fusions say that you only need training in the skill in order to transfer the Fusion from one weapon to another. But that is Starfinder - so not a ruling to use here.
In PF2 the rules for Runes says that you need to follow the normal rules for crafting an item in order to etch a rune onto a weapon or armor. So obviously for creating a new rune, you must have the Magical Crafting feat.
But there is a separate section of rules for transferring runes. It also says that it uses the Craft activity. I have to assume that it also means the full Craft Activity rules. But since you aren't creating the rune, only transferring it, the requirement for Magical Crafting in order to create a magical item may not apply. That is where the uncertainty is from what I read.
So I would lean towards RAW saying that you do need Magical Crafting in order to transfer a rune.
And I am going to houserule it to not require that feat for transferring a rune in games that I run. Players should be able to use the loot that they get.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We know the intent, though, even if it's not explicitly stated in a book anywhere: "the core expectation if no one in the team has Crafting is that you pay the 5 sp to have a skilled hireling perform the task."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We know the intent, though, even if it's not explicitly stated in a book anywhere: "the core expectation if no one in the team has Crafting is that you pay the 5 sp to have a skilled hireling perform the task."
i mean that has to do with the crafting skill, the use of which was never in doubt, it has nothing to do with he feat "magical crafting"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We know the intent, though, even if it's not explicitly stated in a book anywhere: "the core expectation if no one in the team has Crafting is that you pay the 5 sp to have a skilled hireling perform the task."i mean that has to do with the crafting skill, the use of which was never in doubt, it has nothing to do with he feat "magical crafting"
It's also specific to PFS play, which has very different base assumptions than most home games.
That's not PFS.
Michael Sayre specifically talks about PFS.
"Since this area is a little gray in the core rules, the Society has a person at the Grand Lodge who can swap out the runes for you": PFS
"There should be an official clarification of this being added to the guide": PFS
"As a preemptive point of order, this a convenience that is specific to Society play.": PFS
Even the thread title is "Upgrading a weapon gained from a chronicle": Pathfinder Society section.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's not PFS.Michael Sayre specifically talks about PFS.
You need to read closer. PFS gets the service for free.
Per my conversation with the design team, the core expectation if no one in the team has Crafting is that you pay the 5 sp to have a skilled hireling perform the task.
The option for 5 sp for a hireling is a design team expectation, not a PFS team one.
That's not PFS.Michael Sayre specifically talks about PFS.You need to read closer. PFS gets the service for free.
Per my conversation with the design team, the core expectation if no one in the team has Crafting is that you pay the 5 sp to have a skilled hireling perform the task.The option for 5 sp for a hireling is a design team expectation, not a PFS team one.
You cut that paragraph off a bit: "As a preemptive point of order, this a convenience that is specific to Society play. Per my conversation with the design team, the core expectation if no one in the team has Crafting is that you pay the 5 sp to have a skilled hireling perform the task." That sure reads to me that the core expectation for SOCIETY PLAY is that way. It doesn't read to me that it applies to general non-society play. If it was in a non-PFS thread and wasn't specifically talking about society play, I'd be inclined to agree with you but as it is, I don't see anything there for normal play. If it was a clear cut decision for all play in 2019, it seems odd that it wouldn't be added to the erratas.
Context matters. People who deliberately exclude pertinent context to obfuscate matters are liars. Forshame!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RexAliquid is correct.
The Designer intent for Pathfinder 2 assumes the party has a crafter. Society simply allows for the Grand Lodge to provide that crafter instead.
Remember, the "Design Team" makes the rules themselves. Society has "Developers" that create content.
EDIT: replaced "rules" with "intent"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RexAliquid is correct.
The core rules for Pathfinder 2 assume the party has a crafter. Society simply allows for the Grand Lodge to provide that crafter instead.
Remember, the "Design Team" makes the rules themselves. Society has "Developers" that create content.
So they got together and decided this rule for the game as a whole. So did they put that into the errata? A blog post? The forums for PF2? Nope, we're expected to believe they dropped it into a random PFS thread in 2019 in an effort to let everyone know it's a thing? Yeah, not buying it.
As to who is mentioned... I really don't care: Michael Sayre notes that there is going to be "an official clarification of this being added to the guide", not 'an official clarification added to the core rules'. If it was meant to be an official declaration of a rules change, it did it extremely poorly in wording, context and placement in the site. Unless I see it clearly presented on it's own in a non-PFS context, I'm not seeing it as anything more than a PFS answer. It's like taking an answer in the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game forum as an answer for PFS.
The Designer intent for Pathfinder 2 assumes the party has a crafter.
Well, this is the first time I've heard this. Seems I've played some games in a way unintended by them then. You just have to have a party with no alchemist: you can get along without craft othewise.
PS: In addition, even if I were to take this as RAW, it still doesn't answer the OP's question on needing Magical Crafting. Being able to rent a hireling to transfer in no way answers what a PC needs as NPC's don't follow PC rules.
|
|
Oh I certainly don't call for this in my home games. In the vast majority of my RPGs and video games, you just hand over Item 1 to "ye old smithy" and get back Item 2.
I'm glad Society ruled you just pay the difference and move on. That makes intent fairly moot. Which is why you'll probably never see this in an errata document, and likely why it hasn't shown up yet.
It's very logical that things like transferring runes or having access to spellbooks and rituals is handwaved in PFS because the underlying conceit of PFS is that everyone works for this high-powered magical organization which has resources its members can use.
If, in your home games, the PCs also have access to such an organization, or have friends and associates who can fulfil the same purpose, then why not grant easy access as well.
But if the PCs are travelling heroes with little to no local support, I see no reason to handwave access to rune transfer, crafting or anything else. Sure, they can roleplay into access, pay for crafter or spellcrafter services, or what have you.
And IMHO we don't need exhaustive official price lists for every conceivable service. The DM is fully capable of assigning a reasonable cost, based on his assessment of the task and the PCs' ability to pay.