Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku
|
Unless it happens to show up in a chronicle, there's no way to gain it.
I'm guessing there's few reason why it hasn't been made available: Firstly, two extra spellslots, even if they are lvl 1, is pretty powerful. Secondly, there's no limit to how many of these you can wear, a wizard or even better, a magus could just wear 6 of these plus few other items to gain 12 extra spell slots, which would be pretty huge when normally they have 4+2 spell slots. Lastly, it's just for arcane casters, and simply by existing it makes the other traditions a bit weaker since they can't get a similar boost.
It could show up later, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Endless Grimoire can get you a single bonus spell slot that may be of use.Thanks for the mention, that's a nice item. Though the ring has a special appeal because that's a ring (so small and not easy to lose), has an item bonus to arcana (otherwise the Hats of Magi are more or less the only option and their special properties aren't very useful), is a traditional wizard item with a nice name, and yes, gives more slots.
I'm of the opinion that an item that you can actually get is better than any item that you can't. ;)
|
|
Odd that Archives marks the Ring of Wizardry as PFS legal. I find their ideas on what to make common and uncommon is baffling. Also why some items that are more useful are unavailable unless you can play one particular scenario. Honestly, I would think theey would have just used the existing rules in the book (the less common the item, there’s a markup in cost) rather than nope’ing it out if existence. Let Billy’s have his Ring of Wizardry 1, he had to shell out 500 GP for it, but he did. Or, buy the crafting formula for 300 GP and spend the time making it himself.
Even the item scaling is off. A staff of evocation is cheaper, gives you access to some pretty useful spells, can also be enchanted as a weapon, and in general can be quite useful, and it’s common. Sigh, but it doesn’t matter what logically makes sense, because reasons.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku
|
The amount of items that are only available through playing a specific scenario is really low, though, probably around half a dozen from 3 years of scenarios combined... Adventure Paths have a lot more of those, which is a bit shame at times, like not having access to camels without playing a specific book of a particular AP.
Problem with uncommon items being purchaseable with just spending more gold is that some uncommon things are uncommon because they are... Not common, while some things are uncommon because they may be game/plot breaking and thus their access is limited. It's unfortunate that this same rarity system is used to represent two different kinds of things. For example, there's absolutely 0 reason for Katana to be uncommon, when it could be common with access requirement for being from Tian Xia. Luckily, society FAQ addresses this issue for a lot of different basic weapons.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sigh, but it doesn’t matter what logically makes sense, because reasons.
I think the many, many volunteers and paid employees (all of whom are experienced players and GMs themselves) who spend several weeks collaborating together for every new sourcebook in order to bring us as fair and balanced of an Organized Play experience as possible might take issue with your statement ^_^
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
Odd that Archives marks the Ring of Wizardry as PFS legal. I find their ideas on what to make common and uncommon is baffling.
It's a CRB thing. The robes of the archmagi, staff of the magi and staff of power also aren't common. It seems to be a theme decision.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I would think theey would have just used the existing rules in the book (the less common the item, there’s a markup in cost) rather than nope’ing it out if existence.
Actually, the rule in the book is that Uncommon and Rare items are flat out unavailable unless the GM specifically adds them individually to the game.
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
Others have covered it well, the rarity system is also used to lock out certain types of gameplay from a game... giving control to the GM if they want to run a game with those elements or not.
An increased gp cost would likely not be a very workable solution for org play, even if it was made on a case-by-case basis.
|
|
Therefore, I guess my complaint is about the commonality rules themselves. There are a few items that one would be commonly out there that are uncommon (like the katana, or some of the low level weapons) or ones that would make sense to be common (ring of wizardry 1, dull gray ioun stones, etc.). I can see a lot of the more powerful items being rarer (frost brand, ring of wizardry 4, major staff of evocation, etc.) while their lesser versions would be common. Sigh, I guess they really want to limit players, both in level and items.
|
|
The commonality of cultural items is a valid complaint. I believe as far back as the PF2 Playtest, people were complaining that it sends the wrong message to make a katana uncommon, but a longsword common. Akin to how roleplaying games tend to exoticize things just because of their cultural origin.
Aeon Stones and Rings of Wizardry, however, I don't think you're giving them their fair consideration.
Aeon Stones are the product of a civilization that died out 10,000 years ago, give or take the rare outskirt settlements that persisted for a couple thousand years. Even the most common Aeon Stones should be Uncommon. If anything, higher level ones should be Rare.
And the Ring of Wizardry should be obvious, since it's constantly being requested. It's a powerful item that uniquely increases your number of spell slots. Gold is nothing compared to spending your Class Feats on Archetypes, of which there are plenty to choose from.
It's kind of like asking why you have to pay so much for a Black Lotus, compared to a Gilded Lotus. They basically do the same thing, right?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
it sends the wrong message to make a katana uncommon, but a longsword common. Akin to how roleplaying games tend to exoticize things just because of their cultural origin.
Japan had longswords *long* before they had katanas. In fact the most important sword in japan (Kusanagi no Tsurugi) is a long sword, not a katana. Katanas were not particularly common even in Japan.
And there are plenty of "western" uncommon weapons. (Boarding axe, for example, or Dueling sword.)
|
Katanas are the item everyone always complains about (because Katanas Are Cooler), which often leads me to wonder two things:
1) Was “Katanas are Cooler” started by the first Highlander movie or did it co-opt an existing meme (before they were widely called memes)? Not old enough to personally know the answer.
2) How common *were* katanas, really? I mean, how many total katanas are estimated to have existed in, say, the shogunate period? How does that compare to longswords in medieval England or the Teutonic states? As a percentage of population? As a percentage of total weapons? How about compared to gladiuses in the Roman Empire?
...
In fact the most important sword in japan (Kusanagi no Tsurugi) is a long sword, not a katana.
...
That's cool! I didn't know about that legend.
|
|
Katanas are the item everyone always complains about (because Katanas Are Cooler), which often leads me to wonder two things:
1) Was “Katanas are Cooler” started by the first Highlander movie or did it co-opt an existing meme (before they were widely called memes)? Not old enough to personally know the answer.
2) How common *were* katanas, really? I mean, how many total katanas are estimated to have existed in, say, the shogunate period? How does that compare to longswords in medieval England or the Teutonic states? As a percentage of population? As a percentage of total weapons? How about compared to gladiuses in the Roman Empire?
All really good questions. Unfortunately I really have no idea.
Except that:
The term "Meme" was invented in 1976.
Highlander was released in 1986.
The field of memetics (the study of memes) was created in 1990.
|
|
The commonality of cultural items is a valid complaint. I believe as far back as the PF2 Playtest, people were complaining that it sends the wrong message to make a katana uncommon, but a longsword common. Akin to how roleplaying games tend to exoticize things just because of their cultural origin.
Aeon Stones and Rings of Wizardry, however, I don't think you're giving them their fair consideration.
Aeon Stones are the product of a civilization that died out 10,000 years ago, give or take the rare outskirt settlements that persisted for a couple thousand years. Even the most common Aeon Stones should be Uncommon. If anything, higher level ones should be Rare.
And the Ring of Wizardry should be obvious, since it's constantly being requested. It's a powerful item that uniquely increases your number of spell slots. Gold is nothing compared to spending your Class Feats on Archetypes, of which there are plenty to choose from.
It's kind of like asking why you have to pay so much for a Black Lotus, compared to a Gilded Lotus. They basically do the same thing, right?
Apologies for the late reply, been a bit busy these last two and a half months.
With the manufacturing power of Absalom, you would think that certain items would be a lot easier to get. Something like a Ring of Wizardry 1 would probably be pretty easy to commission someone to make one for the regular purchase cost. Or buy the formula and craft it oneself. A Ring of Wizardry 2, I could see that as just barely uncommon. At about the Ring of Wizardry 5, I would swap it to rare. There are a few items that I would tier up like that. If they don't want to get the items for us, they could at least give us a way to buy the formulas and make them ourselves, even if it's just once for our own use. Hell, I'd spend 500 GP to do that, would mean I could use those first level slots for some utility spells.
The alternate is create more items like the Endless Grimoire that give a free spell slot. As a non-primary spellcaster, my eldritch rogue would like to be able to cast more than 3-4 spells a day. Or alter the dedication feats to add more slots as you go (i.e. when you take the second level of dedication, you not only get access to the next two spell levels, you also get an extra spell of the lower levels).
Yes, it might be pointless to complain, but I would hope that someone out there is reading, maybe will get an idea of how frustrating it is sometimes.
|
|
It shouldn't be frustrating. You have just as many spellcasting options as anyone else.
But if the Ring of Wizardry was opened up, it would essentially become a "must have" option. Everyone who could utilize one would acquire as many as they could, and anyone who couldn't utilize it would be more inclined to create a character who could.
All of which would be bad for the game. And for Society, especially.
Venture-Agent, Texas—Houston
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Then what is the point of putting an item with such an unbalanced effect in the core book, then putting it behind a "PCs must never have this" wall because of said balance issues.
How is this not a waste of space in an already overstuffed tome of a book?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because a home game GM, supposedly the majority of GMs out there, can still decide to reward their players with it if they so choose.
Right now I'm GMing for a Swashbuckler, Rogue, Cleric and Witch. The Ring of Wizardry will never be of any use to them, so they'll never encounter one.
But if that Witch was instead a Wizard, or, if the Rogue picked up Wizard spellcasting, maybe the Ring could work its way into a Treasure Bundle somewhere down the line.
But if I had a Wizard instead of a Witch, and a Sorcerer instead of a Cleric, It'd probably be off the table again.
You know what I said in my last post is true. If the Ring wasn't Uncommon, it'd be in every online "Ultimate Guide to the Wizard" and every PC would be saving up for it as soon as possible.
But it becomes a different discussion when it's gated behind GM's choice.
|
Venture-Captain, Online—VTT
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Then what is the point of putting an item with such an unbalanced effect in the core book, then putting it behind a "PCs must never have this" wall because of said balance issues.
How is this not a waste of space in an already overstuffed tome of a book?
Society is not the default assumption for Pathfinder, things that may not fit well in the sort of games we play may be perfect for home games where a GM is more able to make calls that fit their group, the base rules shouldn't be limited to what we work with.
|
|
Standard
All options are of standard availability unless specifically noted otherwise.Limited
General Feats: Connections (page 260).Spells: dreaming potential (page 333)
Equipment: Hirelings (page 294); Pathfinder Society characters have access to more capable hirelings through the Achievement Points system.
Restricted
None.
Select an uncommon item from a curated list of Pathfinder Core Rulebook options; this PC gains access to it. 20.00 Achievement Points - PFS(2ed)
Looks to me like you're only 20 Achievement Points away from gaining access to the ring of wizardry. What am I missing?
|
|
It's complicated.
Right now, the FAQ is the best place for those Boon descriptions, because they are literally the most "frequently asked questions" in this Forum.
And they likely will continue to be, until their descriptions can be added to the Boon store. That's apparently a digital project that is on hold right now, either due to manpower, budget, ability, priority, or a likely combination of all of the above.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku
|
Filtcher's Fork is uncommon because it's a halfling weapon. You can gain access to it by getting the Hafling Weapon Familiarity feat, or by being human and selecting it with the Unconventional Weaponry - because those two feats say that they give you access to it. There are no boons to gain access to the Filcher's Fork.