This includes spells with an instantaneous or permanent duration, such as continual flame, create undead or fabricate.So this means you cannot use masterwork transformation as a cleric yourself, just paying the 300gp or 150gp or what have you to upgrade a current item.
Quote: Any spell cast by a PC during the course of a scenario that is still active at the end of a scenario ends when the scenario does. Why else do we keep having to send people to handle the same badguys over and over again we can't find any way to keep them dead. I know the logic is strange, and it's only semi-related, but I thought I'd share it anyway, since I'm sure somebody else will find it amusing.
So, any bad guy you may have killed with magic missile or fireball gets right back up and goes about his/her/its business, like nothing ever happened. isn't just about every commonly used evocation an instantaneous effect? If you looked at it that way, that means, at the end of each module, all of your damage causing evocations end.
So it looks like i should avoid the heirloom weapon trait. The hat goes on a little tighter and the answer looks like no, clamp it down all the way it and it looks like yes. With the rules lawyer had completely off, it makes sense thematically to allow someone to have a cherished weapon as they level up, grandpas sword or what have you.įrom a balance perspective, it doesn't make sense for a character to ever loose a trait, and that's what happens if you can't enchant your heirloom weapon: its not magic, therefore its useless to you. Some DM's would say yes and some would say no. Well, this is the downside to a shared environment. There is a fair chance this will be changed in the next version of the guide and often there is little or no recourse for people who choose to skirt chase down loopholes in the rules such as this. Sorry to turn your simple question into a mess BigNorseWolf.īNW - Talk you your GM about whether you can do this, it won't fly in our local group, but some might let it happen. Thus, one of the main reasons I feel strongly that the rules as written need to be followed is I feel it is the only way to be consistent. What drives me nuts, much more so than rules where the intent doesn't match the wording, is that the differing enforcement of these rules creates inconsistency in an organized play environment. So I still say it works, you may disagree and rule differently at your table but I think you're just as wrong as you think I am. I feel like the technically correct rule is: masterwork transformation works as expected when cast by an NPC, even though the intended rule is that it doesn't. Even if Mike specifically said it didn't work, it would be an optional rule (If the GM knows about it they may apply it) until it appeared in the guide. Mike strongly implies that it shouldn't work, and would prefer if people didn't play it that way, not that it doesn't work.
I don't remember seeing anything from Mark on the subject (but I seem to miss a lot of his posts). Needless to say, this thread has run its course. Until such time as we clarify or change the rules as written, folks need to take off their rules lawyer hats and play the game as best you can interpreting the rules in the spirit of the game and not in an effort to be right and to find every loophole. We recognize that the rule is unclear, and working that into something that doesn't cause threads like this is high on the agenda for our new campaign coordinator.