Gallo's page

Here's the problem.

If the magic item creation system is supposed to be held together by "GM fiat" AKA "Home brew", then the entire system itself should be in the homebrew forum and never be allowed in the general discussion.

I expect the General Discussion section to start decreasing immediately because it is full of threads where people are offering suggestions.

Now if it doesn't happen then I will start to get a fishy smell in my nostrils.

The magic item creation system is not held together by "homebrew". You just don't like the system. Many of your proposed changes are because you do not like some of the elements that are clearly spelled out in the rules - base price 50% of sale price, crafting while adventuring, etc - not because "GM Fiat" is needed to make them work. They work perfectly well as written.

The area where they drift into what can be called "GM Fiat" is custom items. This is not a flaw of the system - it is a feature explicitly built into it. This, however, does not mean the rest of the creation rules are GM Fiat.

If you have a better suggestion just start a post in the homebrew forum with a clear explanation of your own system, rather than throwing out posts basically saying the system is broken and then attacking people who say it isn't. None of the suggestions you have made to date could not be accomodated within the Pathfinder magic item creation rules. But that is the beauty of the system - you can use what you want, modify other bits, homebrew to your heart's content.

But to continually attack other posters, devs and moderators is just tendentious and childish. Some of your suggestions have some merit and provide options for someone to change how things work in their own game but many people will just ignore them because of the manner in which you express them.

In conveying a message, how you say it can be just as important as what you say...

shallowsoul wrote:

Can we see the rules on item creation actually fixed or even an attempt at fixing?

The problems of the system have been pointed out so how about work from there.

I have seen questions about things, and things that need clarified, but I have yet to see things that actually need fixedthe only exception to this is a feat or ability that could theoretically make crafting free, but I believe that the entire idea is based on a false assumtion about stacking discounts, which falls under "a need for clarification" not a need for change, nor have I seen any problems posted.

So a quick summery of these problems would be nice.

Shallowsoul has created several threads recently bemoaning the fact that magic item creation in Pathfinder is broken. But for every person who thinks that the rules desperately need fixing, there are many more who are perfectly happy with the rules or that there are issues that just need clarifying.

The problem with changing the rules to match the demands/desires of the vocal few is that you would then have lots of people complaining about the changes and that the old rules were just fine.

If you don't like the rules discuss the issues with your group and houserule to your heart's content.

Scott Betts wrote:

Andrew R wrote:

How do you decide who deserves the second amendment?

I'm getting pretty tired of people acting like this is nothing but liberals spitting on the second amendment. It's time you grew a halfway decent understanding of what the Constitution is and what it means.

Quote:

What steps are you calling for people to do to "not allow" their guns to fall into the wrong hands?

Read the thread. I'm sick of repeating myself for your benefit.

I'm not the one trying to hold its rights from others, you try reading it. of course i get the feeling you are one of the folks that think it is outdated and you know better than those long dead men what people should and should not have.

If those "long dead men" could see what some people are trying to claim the 2nd was meant to mean I think they would wish they had spent a bit more time clarifying the wording.

And plus if protecting the broader population means that the "rights" of others are restricted n some way, then so be it. That is what life in a civilised society is all about. Or are you advocating things like no speed limits anywhere, drink driving is fine, etc etc.

I feel very conflicted by this thread.

I've spent eight years as a LEO, four as a Constitutional law scholar and attorney, three as a professor.. most importantly, six years as a father.

My professional work revolves largely around law enforcement and firearms law (it was my seminar in law school and my mentor just finished writing the first casebook on the subject), so it would seem natural for me to go straight there.. but when I heard the news, I thought about my daughter's own school.

I've dropped her off every single day and never paid a bit of attention to how the school is locked, whether somebody needs to be "buzzed" into the building, whether or not it was easy to break into.

I reviewed the VTRP report and wrote my college's comprehensive emergency plan.. why had that never crossed my mind?

I looked over the VTRP report and came across this:

"The campus is not enclosed; anyone can walk or drive onto it. There are no guarded roads or gateways. Cars can enter on any...road entrance[], many of which are not in line of sight of each other. Pedestrians can use sidewalks or simply walk across grassy areas to get onto the campus."

This sounds like my college. It sounds like my daughter's school. It sounds a lot like Newtown.

I don't know about you, but I'm not planning to dig out my Constitutional law or firearms law textbook. I'm going to my school board and asking for better locks, better fences.

This is not the best solution, and I know that. Anybody who is /really/ determined can get through /any/ barrier or use /any/ weapon.

Locking my door and putting the alarm on my house is going to stop a casual burglary, not a serious criminal who is willing to take the risks getting in.. Same goes for schools, I suppose.

My only point is this: I need to do what I can /right now/ to try to make my home, school or workplace a little safer.

For me, that doesn't mean keeping a patrol rifle by my desk or lobbying Congress to ban high capacity magazines. It means walking around and paying attention to things I took for granted: who can get in my building? what am I doing to control access? if I needed to lock down a building, could I? how am I handling mass notification? how am I making my workspace and my daughter's school harder targets?

If you want to do something right now, go to your kid's school and look at the locks, doors, walls, fences; ask your school board to take safety seriously and fight for more funding related to safety and security measures.

Don't you find it incredibly sad that you even have to look at your child's school (or any similar location) and think in terms of how you could make it safe from someone with a gun? Or even worse how to make it a "harder target"? We are talking about a school not a wartime military target.

I think that it is appalling things have got to the point in a society where they are issues that people even have to consider. If I talk to my school about funding I want to be discussing educational issues not having to "fight" for security measures.

They aren't things we have to consider where I live. I look at my kids' new school fence (not erected for security issues) and I don't think they are safe from loonies. I think that it is now a shame I can't take them down to play on the play equipment on the weekend.

Security and freedom are opposites, the more you have of one, the less you have of the other. Nothing we can do can change that, though some people may be happy with less freedom, others, not so much.

How about you come and live in Australia for a bit. We have lots of freedoms and lots of security. I don't feel the need to own a gun on the off chance some loony attacks me. I don't feel the need to keep semi-automatic weapons in the house to defend myself from an armed home invasion.

If someone were to break into my house I'd get in trouble if I shot them - proportional use of force and all that. Perhaps there are people who'd relish the opportunity to shoot someone who threatened them in some way. Personally, I think that is just sad.

Out of curiosity how many people in the US each year are shot and killed by someone legitimately defending themselves compared to how many people are accidentally killed by guns kept by someone for the purpose of legitimately defending themselves?

You and others keep going on about freedom and rights as though certain ones (ie your ones) are more important than others. Does the idea of balance enter your thinking? A balance between an individual's rights and freedoms versus the wider community's? Add in a few things like obligations (you pay tax and the government provides certain services etc) and you get a complex mix of issues that contribute to a functioning and safe society. Lots of countries don't place individual gun rights very high but still manage to be stable, safe and prosperous.

2nd, I am better then most at combat. One thing about guns, is they don't require training at all to use, so most don't train, even the military has substandard training (well maybe the front-line guys, and the marines might make par) so if I win against the drill sergeants, I think I can take a few untrained whackos. Might get hurt in such a confined space with no maneuvering space but hey I honestly wouldn't hestitate.

Have you ever been in combat? No one knows until they have actually been in combat.......

And you really think guns don't require any training to use? You mean basic things like clearing stoppages correctly, putting a magazine on your weapon the right way around by touch, selecting the right setting when you flick the safety catch with your thumb, aiming, firing, etc. Nah, none of that really needs training. And that is when no one is even shooting back at you.

And you know those untrained whackos? How would you know they were untrained? And if they have guns, well - as you have claimed - they don't actually need training so technically, in your world, there is no such thing as an untrained whacko.......

I agree that most people don't have the training to handle that situation, me I prefer to treat people as adults and educate/train them as opposed to treating them like babies and tell them they aren't allowed because of Bobby down the street.

I could handle it, I know this because I was a soldier, and I was better then the drill sergeants. That is a really good reason to believe myself capable of doing some good in a bad situation. Can you come up with a better reason to believe otherwise?

Better than the drill sergeants? Really? At what point did that become apparent? And in what skills? I hope you let the drill sergeants know, because when I was an instructor in my army we always appreciated being told by our trainees that they were better than us. We could just hand over the lessons to them and nip down the pub for a beer or two.......

Actually it is not pointless at all. What the book "says" is often clear. What is "means" is something different. If you want to argue that there are "twist and turns" then present them.

We are just going around and around on opposite sides of a merry-go-round. Again, the very fact that this thread even exists shows that what the book "says" is not clear and therefor it is up to us to work out what it "means". I think enough people have illustrated the "twists and turns" in the form of the logical arguments they have presented to make their particular case to not warrant further pursuit.

Malachi wrote a very well-structured post (which I don't think was at all high horse) presenting one side of the argument, other people have written well-strucutred posts arguing the opposite. None of us are defintively right, just as none of us are definitively wrong (even if the general consensus is RAW right-or-wrong, RAI is pretty clear) - until Sean or someone comes down and lays down the Paizo version of a Supreme Court ruling in an appeals case :)

How big is your group? Getting rid of the problem player and having a smaller group is a much better outcome than being unhappy in a slightly larger group.

Either the player is immature and just doesn't get he is causing problems or he is just a d#$*%ead who doesn't deserve to be included in a group that wants to enjoy the game.

I'd suggest making your feelings very clear to the GM and individually talk with the other players, bar the problem one. If you can reach a consensus about booting him, just do it. Life is too short to deal with obnoxious people. And if you are real life friends - is obnoxious towards you all outside of the game?

I have a Strength based MoMS monk - admittedly only two levels at this stage, but with 3 levels of fighter (brawler) and two of alchemist. He's a kind of "Incredible Hulk". I may take a level or two of barbarian for extra cheesy hulking goodness.

I couldn't see any benefit of going more monk levels at this stage. I might take one or two more to get better UAS damage with a Monk's Robe. Though taking light armour with the brawler ability would probably be a better option.

My two styles are Dragon and Crane. WIth a bumped up Str, especially with a mutagen up, the to hit penalty of fighting defensively is not noticable. The extra damage using Dragon Ferocity is impressive. All in all he is quite a fun character to play but will soon be hit with the age old conundrum of enchanting his UAS.

And it took all of about 10 minutes to show how it is virtually impossible to have an intelligent discussion about a class without someone getting obnoxious.

If you don't have something constructive to contribute just go back under your bridge and wait for some billy goats gruff to wander along.

Hi Sean - thanks for the opportunity to provide input on this issue.

I have some thoughts on the prerequisite issue as that is one of the main sources of confusion.

There needs to be clear rules, written in one location (to help clarify the old "specific text" trumps "general" text), that clearly define and list what "missing things" will add to the DC and what things cannot be avoided with an increased DC.

Missing spell in spellbook (eg Wizard spell you do not yet know)
Missing spell (eg Sorcerer has it on class list but does not know it)
Missing spell (eg Wizard making item requiring Cleric spell)
Missing spell (eg non-caster using Master Craftsman feat)
Caster level 3 x + of item (eg level 6 crafter making +3 sword)
Race or class requirement (eg Elf making "Dwarf-only" item)
Caster not high enough to know required spell (Wiz5 wants to craft a wand of a level 4 spell)
etc etc

The only thing everyone agrees on is that you need the relevant item creation feat. That is, for want of a better term, a hard requirement, everything else is a soft requirement.

I don't really care what falls into which category (other than relevant feat), but a clear list of what, using my suggested terminology above, is hard and what is soft would make things easier. People could houserule to their heart's content but the core rules would be clear.

Cooperative crafting

Clarification (and perhaps some simple examples in the text) on how characters can work together to simplify process.

eg. Wizard with Craft Wand wants to make a Wand of Cure Light Wounds with a Cleric helping.

Can it be done? Does he even need the help if he can just add +5 to the DC for not knowing the spell.

eg Fighter with Master Craftsman and Craft Magic Weapon wants to make a +1 Flaming Burst Spear. Can a Sorcerer who knows Fireball help? Does the Sorcerer have to be there every day of the crafting process

eg. Can two Wizard 5 with Craft Wand make a Wand of Fireball twice as fast as if they were working alone?

Terminology

Differentiate the words used in mundane and magical crafting as the terminology is confusing. Sometimes you are making ("crafting") the magic item from scratch and other times you are basically enchanting ("crafting") an existing item. Why not replace "craft" with "enchant" to cover the magic item side of things.

This could impact on the whole "how does the Master Craftsman feat work" issue. I see that process being the character imbues the weapon/armour/item with magic as part of the process of crafting the base item from scratch. As opposed to a Wizard casting spells/performing arcane rituals/[insert fluff here] into an existing item.

Spellcraft

Why is Spellcraft needed for crafting magic items? Why does a powerful sorcerer with amazing inate magical talent need Spellcraft - an INT based skill - to enchant a magic item?

I can see Spellcraft being INT based for other uses of the skill, but if "crafting" a magic item involves imbuing it with magical power why does a sorcerer need to use spellcraft?

He's read the adventure....

He makes the game less fun for other players and the DM....

He ruins encounters....

When he DMs he gets annoyed with players who do anything vaguely like what he does when he plays....

Sounds like he is a complete tool.

So why are you playing with him now, let alone considering having him in your next campaign?

Man I feel sorry for you guys.

I am very lucky to be living in Australia. We seem to have the best health care system in the world.

Need a root canal? Done!
Appendix need to come out? Done!
Daughter broke her arm? Fixed!

All these happened to my family with only a day or so wait and 0 out of pocket cost!
I got a workmate who has cancer and gets chemo on the public system.

Private health here really only means a private room and you pick your doctor.
Oh and our public system won't pay for cosmetic surgery.

Anything else and you are sweet.
Our nurse to patient ratio is 1 to 4.

I have had American friends visit who marvel at our health care.
The downside?
We are about the highest taxing nation in the world!!!
He said Americans would riot over our taxes.

I'll admit I hate tax time. But I was so happy when the doctors fixed my daughters turning eyes. She would be blind otherwise.

Arrrgh. We are not "about the highest taxing nation in the world". That's just yet another simple Liberal party slogan meant for the masses whose political understanding goes as far as the words of the loonie right wing talkback hosts will penetrate their memory (and for US friends - our Liberals are actually the conservative party in our system). Look at comparisons with OECD countries to get an idea of who we compare with other countries.

Our public health system is fantastic but wait times do vary a lot depending on where you live. Private means you don't have to wait - and in a life-threatening emergency the public health system is fantastic (from personal experience twice).

Canada still has a relatively high rate of gun ownership (as does, surprisingly, Australia), which is my point. They are there, but they aren't usually abused.

Australia does not have high levels of gun ownership and the list of what types of firearms private citizens can own is very restrictive.

I think it would be fine from a RP perspective if you were tithing that 10% to your church - and make it clear to the group that is what your are using the 10% for.

Down the track the church may then step in to assist the kingdom in some way because you (and the party by extension) have been so supportive of it.

In Kingmaker you can easily create an in-game purpose for that money that none of the other players should have reason to complain about. Talk to your DM about ways to incorporate the 10% into the game in a meaningful way. Have you befriended the kobolds? Perhaps the church is using the money to "civilise" the kobolds.

In my group we spent a squillion BP building a "spa resort" on Lake Silverstep just for the fun of it. Be creative and encourage the rest of the party to do the same :)

If the character was captured by human barbarians as a child how does she know how to use a hand crossbow? Racial weapon proficiencies come from nurture not nature. Even if she learnt how to use it a bit in Drow kindergarten, picking one up years later does not automatically mean she can use it effectively.

and back on topic.....

If the guy has been spoken to once and hasn't modified his behaviour then I'd remove him from the group. DMing is hard enough, particularly if you are inexperienced, without having an obnoxious prat making things unpleasant for other people.

DnD is meant to be fun for all involved and a cooperative activity. With a large group you run the risk of the "nice" players getting fed up and starting their own group and you are left with the problem player(s).

Having spent way too long carrying heavy backpacks while in the army, trying to do anything active while heavily loaded is both very tiring and seriously impedes your capabilities. And on the rare occasions I had to carry a second one on my front (usually while helping carry a stretcher with the backpack's owner on it!) my ability do anything else was about zero.

Pathfinder basically hand waves away any in-combat issues with wearing a backpack in combat. Though trying to add rules around the issue would get messy.

The idea of wearing two backpacks and still being able to do anything other than walk in a straight line without tripping over and do all the things an adventurer does - which is presumably what your player wants to do - is stretching things.

Let him have his two backpacks, sack, bag of holding etc. Then ambush the party and see what he does. "How are you wielding a shield? Wasn't that the arm with which you were carrying that heavy sack? What, it was strapped to your pack? Ok, move at more than half speed and the sack swings around and gets in the way of your sword arm". If he drops the sack, or backpacks, keep note of where he dropped them and have the baddies grab them, or present a situation where he has to decide whether to stay and protect his gear or run away and live.

You don't have to be mean about it, just present realistic situations and see how he reacts. Will the rest of the party want to stay and risk dying just so Mr Multi-backpacks can protect his gear?

As an aside, how much stuff does he want to carry if he can't fit it in a handy haversack anyway? Sounds like he is a compulsive hoarder. A Scroll of Remove Psychological Disorder wouldn't go astray.

A stock standard katana should be like a stock standard longsword/mace/etc, irrespective of what stats the weapon ends up having.

A well-made one should be masterwork and give slight bonuses as per any other masterwork weapon.

A really, really well made one, crafted by a master sword maker, folded over itself to make a million layers of steel etc etc should be, in Pathfinder terms, a +1 or +2 or + whatever. No different to any other weapon.

My family has a stock standard WW2 Japanese Army issue katana and it is not better constructed than the stock standard Dutch East Indies colonial era cavalry sabre we have. Most swords were simply mass produced. The rich would commission better ones - in game terms masterwork or magical - from a master craftsman.

There is nothing amazing about normal katanas, but there is lots amazing about really, really well made ones.