Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Tack]

Started using my fighter to hook large and faraway creatures with a grappling hook- after hefting the -4 a few times, I've switched it to a harpoon.

Which is awesome, I've currently harpooned 3 flying creatures, two of them being bosses, with the only problem that they all without fail manage to snip my rope.
Getting kinda sick of this shit.

[Bauglir]

You might try switching to chain, perhaps?

[Tack]

Yeah, currently working on a mithril chain. Not sure if I should make it the first ten feet or the whole dang length.

[Jimmy]

Buy 10 feet and get a wizard to cast Fabricate on it a few times. Presto! Triple the length each cast. Because screw physics, it's a wizard damn it.

[Tack]

I actually have a +1 hammer with Fabricate.

Also, I play 3.5+. Fabricate has to use the same amount of material as the raw material started with.
Is how I actually made my harpoon, by holding a bunch of javelins around a pitchfork and snapping my fingers. Was pretty cool in the moment.

[Jimmy]

If you read the rules as written, it actually creates more materials when used this way.

Fabricate's text says regarding the components:

Material Component
The original material, which costs the same amount as the raw materials required to craft the item to be created.

When you craft an item you pay one-third of the item’s price for the cost of raw materials.

Therefore if you let the 10 ft. chain be the original material, it costs three times the amount as the raw materials required to craft the item.

Thus using the 10 ft. chain as the original material, you can create a 30 ft. chain by the rules as written.

[Flying Dice]

You know, that's sort of begging to be combined with an upgraded Rod of Ropes to make a fantasy harpoon gun.

[Sergius]

If you read the rules as written, it actually creates more materials when used this way.

Fabricate's text says regarding the components:

Material Component
The original material, which costs the same amount as the raw materials required to craft the item to be created.

When you craft an item you pay one-third of the item’s price for the cost of raw materials.

Therefore if you let the 10 ft. chain be the original material, it costs three times the amount as the raw materials required to craft the item.

Thus using the 10 ft. chain as the original material, you can create a 30 ft. chain by the rules as written.

Seems to me that it's telling you that the uncrafted materials are cheaper than the finished thing, not that you use one third of the mass of the item. And in industry, raw material can't be a finished product (in fact it would mean ore, not even ingots, as raw means as found in nature "unprocessed or minimally processed". But in a RPG I would probably allow ingots).

Raw materials -> intermediate material -> finished product.
Intermediate would be the ingots, then the chain links. The chain itself can be considered an intermediate product if you're using it to make something else, or a finished product if you're just going to sell it that way.

If you start with a finished chain you can make a finished chain of the same length, and you should pay for the full finished chain that you used, since it wasn't a raw material. In fact, you could say that since the raw materials of a completed chain are worth 1/3 of the price of the chain, you're in fact destroying the first chain, making it lose two thirds of its value, then using the raw materials. Or you're just saving work.

[Culise]

Indeed.  I don't think the RAW covers overcharging for raw materials or paying for more-expensive finished goods to render them into raw materials.  Usually, though, I hear the logic around Resurrection where it's paying 10,000 g for tiny diamond fragments, but by contrast, I don't believe I've ever heard anyone argue that buying a diamond the size of an ogre's head for a copper piece, to exaggerate a bit, would disqualify it from use for material components. 

[Mephisto]

Indeed.  I don't think the RAW covers overcharging for raw materials or paying for more-expensive finished goods to render them into raw materials.  Usually, though, I hear the logic around Resurrection where it's paying 10,000 g for tiny diamond fragments, but by contrast, I don't believe I've ever heard anyone argue that buying a diamond the size of an ogre's head for a copper piece, to exaggerate a bit, would disqualify it from use for material components.

I have. Something about the inherent value of the reagent being what allows it to function.

In fact, that might even be a rule in GURPS IIRC and it even makes sense there. In order to enchant things into what are essentially mana capacitors, you base the capacity off of the cash value of the item. If diamonds are worthless, they won't make good power stones.

[Culise]

Sorry, I should clarify - while it's useful in most non-metagaming situations to indicate quality by cost, in this case the cost examples isn't actually denoting the actual quality or inherent value of the diamond.  It's only what the adventurers are actually paying for it, and in this example is essentially an artificial market distortion in order to (meta-)game the system.  Or, if charitable, because of supply-demand considerations or some other in-game reason. 

"I've got 10 diamonds, and you can have the lot for 10 thousand."
"I'll pay 10 thousand for each."
"...OK."
"Great.  Now we can have 10 Resurrections instead of one."

[Sergarr]

The whole idea of spell components being "10,000 gp worth of something" is pretty stupid. What if the prices change? Does that suddenly makes all spells demand a different amount of reagent?

Can you crash the market in order to disable some spells from being used for a duration of the crash?

[Flying Dice]

Maybe whoever designed the spells deliberately pegged them to the currency; what the spell actually needs is a threshold of value based on common acceptance of the GP as legal tender as represented by commodities with ties to the effects of the spells. The magic can't run on the gold standard, or the descriptions wouldn't specify coinage. That said, it also specifies gold pieces, excluding silver, copper, and platinum.

Therefore, we can conclude that a conspiracy exists between all casters who use material components across all known planes to intrinsically tie magic to the continued use of gold coins as the currency. They're trying to leverage the importance of their magic to prevent economic development towards the use of fiat money.

[BFEL]

Therefore, we can conclude that a conspiracy exists between all casters who use material components across all known planes to intrinsically tie magic to the continued use of gold coins as the currency. They're trying to leverage the importance of their magic to prevent economic development towards the use of fiat money.

I want a campaign based entirely around this concept.

[GiglameshDespair]

Why Magic Items cost gold.