Pizza Lord, in order to have any kind of rational discussion about game system expectations we must use the WBL system as a starting point. It is how the game is designed. WBL is a core element to understanding what equipment players should get when. It is not ironclad and not involate, but it is the starting point.
Since you appear to be unwilling to use the same starting point most everyone else (and the game system) uses it appears we are at cross purposes and have nothing to discuss.
I'd be curious to know how you intend on rewarding your players? Do you just pull ideas about how much treasure your players should get out of thin air? Do you use Table 12-5? Do you use some treasure generator online? Except for the first all are in some way related to the WBL table.
John, you don't really know how I do things though. You really shouldn't assume how I do them.
I use WBL as an approximation, not as a hard and fast value. If the players are within +10 to +20% of WBL that is in line with Table 12-5 expectations (assuming that half of the 30-40 % over WBL is lost due to sold items and the other half is spent on consumables).
I also take into account if someone has been buying an inordinate amount of consumables. It shows up pretty visibly if they do so. If 3 people are close on wealth and one person is short because they keep buying and burning consumables why would I reward that person? I do not reward people for spending too much on consumables. In fact, I usually suggest that the players create a party share with consumables coming out of that.
Summary: Just because I said I audit things and if things are off I may bring them into line does not give you a clear idea of everything else I am doing. You really shouldn't assume.
Well, here are a couple possible suggestions:
2) Ignore the CL altogether and simply go with the requirements but do not allow the +5 to bypass. This did not exist in 3.5 and that seems to be the problem some people are having.
One problem you will still have is that there are items intended for low levels but with significantly higher level requirements. This is usually because the associated spell is a higher level spell and back in 3.X what set the requirements was never really designed all that well anyhow.
Example 3: Handy Haversack is obviously ok for low levels but to craft it requires a level 5 spell and thus is caster level 9.
In short, the prerequisites are completely arbitrary and are usually a function of 'best spell fit' rather than 'when should players have this'.
SeelyOne, there are a number of magic items which have arbitrary (read: pointless) Caster Levels. Example: Pearl of Power 1. It's caster level is based on the Pearl of Power 9 because they did not want to list 9 different Caster Levels.
Preventing your players from making level appropriate items does not make a lot of sense.
1) I do not see how items becoming available before you think they should have been has any bearing on WBL. On the other hand, the reverse is true. WBL has a bearing on the items becoming available.
2) Again, WBL does not become 'less accurate' because you believe items can be acquired earlier. WBL is a treasure value. The Treasure value comes with certain assumptions of equipment.
If you can purchase that equipment earlier than intended then the fault is with the equipment availability (a function of price), not the WBL. Crafting it does not change that. It is still a function of price (price/2 = cost).
Your example of Teleport is not reasonable. Boots of Teleportation would cost 24,500gp to craft. By the time a person could do so without spending more than 1/2 of their WBL they would be level 9. Guess what?
3) There is no reason that someone who actually knows the spell cannot bypass the spell requirements like anyone else. I have done this on a number of occassions.
I never said I would prevent someone from magic item crafting. I said crafting/downtime arguments which is what certain people are trying to state that can be used to provide unlimited wealth. The GM is fully within his rights to control that sort of abuse (assuming it actually works which I don't think it does). One control is limiting the available downtime. However, that does not stop players from crafting magic items due to the crafting while adventuring rule.
Another control is that while you can manufacture mundane/magical items all you want, selling them for profit is the function of a craft or profession check (ie: shopkeeper). That profit is going to be very small, on the order of a few GP per day.
John Kerpan, why would a character be penalized for buying a permanent +5 bonus item? Your statement doesn't make much sense.
In any case, how do those players have that opportunity? The GM. Time away from adventuring is allowed or not allowed by the GM. Additionally, the section on downtime is up to the GM as well. He does not have to allow it.
I have yet to see a way for a player to actually make game breaking amounts of money using mundane (or even magic) crafting. If they want to make an item sure, they made it. That doesn't mean they can sell it. So, lets say they own a shop. In the space of a year they MIGHT sell one item and make, on average, a few GP per day. That is what the craft/profession checks are for.
In any case, if they want to play shopkeeper they can retire that character or find a different GM since that is not the same game I am playing/GMing (Pathfinder).
I really think these crafting/downtime arguments are strawmen that any GM can simply say no to. I dont know why you and Diego think they are a viable argument to why the ability to bypass crafting requirements is broken.
I am one of those that do audit every so often (usually every other level) and then adjust...but it is a guidepost, not the means to handing out wealth. I use it to make changes to table 12-5.
However, that is really irrelevant to this discussion. The element of the discussion that involves wealth is: Is the amount of treasure the Devs expect players to possess (at or near WBL) intended to be a limiting factor on what they can purchase and/or create? I believe the answer is yes and I vaguely remember the Devs stating something similar at some point.
If I understand correctly, it is Pizza's position that wealth is a poor control.
In any case, this is not a rules debate, it is an opinion debate and thus I probably don't have anything left to contribute. I have stated my opinion. :)
While WBL is a useful metric when discussing relative wealth it is NOT the actual system used to hand out wealth to players. Table 12-5 is. Table 12-5 hands out 30-40% more than the WBL chart. It is assumed the extra is lost in consumables and the sale of items.
WBL's main purpose is for creating a new PC and as a guidepost for the approximate wealth a player should have. Burning consumables over time is not factored into that because it is factored into the extra that is given via Table 12-5.
In any case, the GM is the one handing out the wealth so the wealth system cannot be 'gamed'. If the GM chooses to hand out too much or too little that is his choice. My comments here is to state that handing out too much has its own dangers that are completely independent from the point Pizza the Hut is trying to make.
Note: I had to say Pizza the Hut just once. It is said in jest. :)
Pizza Lord, are you dismissing the idea that multiple weaker items that all add to the same element are better than one powerful item?
Your whole premise is that it is a bad thing that someone can craft a single powerful item. Any build that is based on a single powerful item can probably be outdone by a build with much cheaper multiple items.
It is just not worth it to spend all of your wealth on single big ticket items.
You cannot eliminate one expectation of the game and then declare another element broken as a result. Separate elements of a game are not each in their own little space.
Five things control how you craft magic items:
Feats must have but relatively simple to acquire
If you go beyond the WBL expectations your game will be different than what is intended. That is up to you, the GM. However, whenever people discuss what the expectations of equipping PCs are we MUST use the WBL chart because that is what the designers expect for you to have at each level.
In any case, yes, you can make really powerful items but in most cases you can do better with a group of cheaper items. It is simply not worth it to put all your resources into a single item. Why own a +5 weapon (50,000gp) when a +3 weapon (18,000gp) and a +4 Belt (16,000gp) will do more or less the same thing for less money?
Bestiary p297 wrote:
If the creature possesses class features (such as spellcasting or sneak attack) for the class that is being added, these abilities stack. This functions just like adding class levels to a character without racial Hit Dice.
So, yes, they stack and your Nymph-Druid 1 is a level 8 Druid for the purposes of spellcasting, a level 9 druid for the purposes of Wild Empathy and a level 1 druid for other abilities.
Pizza Lord, Spontaneous casters are not stuck with a spell they do not want.
First, they can ask someone else to provide the spell (that is in the rules).
Second, they can put a different spell in it's place. In your example the Sorcerer would have to keep his 'wasted spell' for exactly one level.
Frankly, I think you are making a big deal out of nothing. So what if people don't have the pre-requisites? They can acquire them any number of ways (get help from someone, scroll, wand, etc) and if all that fails they can make the item more difficult to craft.
As a sidenote: I have been unable to craft magic items because not having the spell pushed the DC too high even though it was a low price item. So yes, it does happen. (Example: Jingasa of the Fortunate Soldier)
The rules are vague here but nowhere does it state you must have separate hands for a spell focus AND a material component AND a somatic component. That would be 3 hands.
If the thing in your hands is required to cast the spell then it should be safe to assume it is part of the casting and does not interfere. The same logic should apply here.
Frankly though, why are you straitjacketing someone with a musical instrument to cast his spells? There is nothing that requires a violin as part of the spell-casting process. That is what the voice is for.
I went and found one instance of the Devs stating it is intended to be easy:
Edit: Really, this is a philosophy issue. For ages people cried that they wanted a way to create magic items. 3.X introduced it but that cost XP and so people didn't do it because they did not want to fall behind. However, in 3.X crafting was automatically, 100%, successful. There was ZERO chance of failure.
But, that violates some people's ideal of magic items being 'hard to make or acquire'. They become a regular commodity rather than a rare item. If you want items to be rare or difficult that is what house rules are for.
The only two flaws I really find with the crafting system are:
B) We are still using the 3.X item Caster Level system to determine DCs. The DCs of many 3.X items were completely arbitrary and do not make a lot of sense.
Your DCs are off by 5. The starting DC is 5+CL, not CL.
You are using examples that include Wish. Any GM that violates WBL so blatantly where level 3 (or 5 or even 7) PCs are crafting items that cast Wish has other issues.
Also, if you check what I said I did not say "It is my opinion that the Devs wanted crafting DCs to be easy." I said they have STATED that the crafting DCs are intended to be easy. Search the forums, you will find them saying it.
SeelyOne, no...the modifier is for each requirement you do not meet. Either you do, or do not meet the level requirement. There is NO wording stating that it is +5 for each level difference.
In short they shouldn't, but as I stated earlier there may be feats written without the qualifier *melee*. I figure you use common sense. If the feat is intended to apply to melee weapons only then the answer should be 'no'.
This game is not written in legalese. Common sense must be applied.
It requires two hands to use. That *probably* makes it a two-handed weapon.
CRB p141 wrote:
Projectile Weapons: Blowguns, light crossbows, slings, heavy crossbows, shortbows, composite shortbows, longbows, composite longbows, half ling sling staves, hand crossbows, and repeating crossbows are projectile weapons. Most projectile weapons require two hands to use (see specific weapon descriptions).
CRB p147 wrote:
Longbow: At almost 5 feet in height, a longbow is made up of one solid piece of carefully curved wood. You need two hands to use a bow, regardless of its size.
However, it does not qualify for the increased damage bonus to two-handed weapons since that requires them to be melee weapons.
There may be feats or abilities which do not specify "melee" when stating that they apply to two-handed weapons and those may have strange results if you attempt to apply them to a Bow.
The Devs have stated that the DCs are not the intended limits, they want crafting DCs to be 'easy'. The hard part is time and (especially) GOLD. That level 3 (or 5, or 7) caster simply wont have the gold to craft anything with 'wish' in it.
I really do not see a problem with crafting having an easy DC for those who take the proper skills to do so.
Equivalent in that case means equivalent to the normal way to bypass DR. +3 is equivalent to Cold Iron and Silver. +4 is equivalent to Adamantine. +5 is equivalent to Alignment-based weapons.
That is not the same as "modified bonus" which is Enhancement bonus + equivalent enhancement bonus from special abilities.
Ipslore the Red, there are a couple problems with your statement.
First, being slotless it does not fall under the "Adding New Abilities" rules.
CRB p553 wrote:
If the item is one that occupies a specific place on a character’s body, the cost of adding any additional ability to that item increases by 50%.
So, in the case of the OP's question, simply double the cost of the Muleback Cords to make them slotless.
Personally, I like to add Muleback Cords to a Cloak of Resistance.
Zelgadas Greyward, while it is not spelled out as such it is generally believed that race based Natural Armor is either EX or SU and is thus lost due to the polymorph rules stating that racial EX/SU abilities are lost while polymorphed. Thus, your dragon will not have a 38 Natural Armor.
There have been a number of threads regarding this.
Climbing out of Acid Pit using a knotted rope and bracing against the corners with 4 people holding the rope
B) Only one item can be affected in round 3 and the list determines which item is affected. Ie: In round 3 only the item at the top of the list is affected.
I could see a case being made for each. Perhaps it is worth a FAQ.
Climbing out of Acid Pit using a knotted rope and bracing against the corners with 4 people holding the rope
Climbing out of Acid Pit using a knotted rope and bracing against the corners with 4 people holding the rope
1) Only if you increase the size to the next step. HD is determined by size.
2) By RAW, there is no additional cost. However, there probably should be.
Bestiary p251 wrote:
Both of these variant skeletons can be created using animate dead, but they count as twice their normal number of Hit Dice per casting.
Note: there is no *hard limit* on the number of CP. There is only the base number of CP for the size category of Necrocraft. You may add CP to even a Colossal Necrocraft.
Bestiary 4 p200 wrote:
If a necrocraft is built with more CP than its size category would allow, its CR increases by 1 (minimum of +1) for every 2 additional CP spent.
No exception is provided stating that you cannot do this with a Colossal Necrocraft.
3) Base Stats are exactly as presented in the Bestiary. Then you modify them by size as per the normal size increase rules.
Bestiary p14 wrote:
An animated object is not simply one monster, but a whole category. The stats presented here are for a Medium animated object (with 2 CP that have not been spent to gain additional abilities), but any object can become animated, most commonly via the spell animate objects. Permanent animated objects can be built using the Craft Construct feat (see page 314). Unless an animated object uses a Construction Point to be made of another material, all animated objects are made of wood or material of equivalent hardness. Creating an animated object of a different size than Medium can be done simply by adjusting the object’s size (and thus adjusting its Strength, Dexterity, natural armor bonus, and size modifier to attack and AC as detailed on page 296) and Hit Dice.
Based on size increases you get the following (assuming I didn't make an error):Medium: Strength 15, Dexterity 13, Natural Armor +4
Large: Strength 23, Dexterity 11, Natural Armor +6
Huge: Strength 31, Dexterity 9, Natural Armor +9
Gargantuan: Strength 39, Dexterity 9, Natural Armor +13
Colossal: Strength 47, Dexterity 9, Natural Armor +18
Minimum Prices (assumes 1 HD Undead are being used as body parts):
Turin, the acid is only at the bottom of the pit.
Acid Pit wrote:
This spell functions as create pit, except that it places a 5-foot-deep pool of acid at the bottom of the pit.
Thus, the rope is not damaged unless it is making contact with the acid. This is pretty easy to prevent by not lowering the rope into the Acid.
It does bring up a question on if you can use the rope when it is 5' above you but you should be able to because you have a 5' reach.
The walls of an Acid Pit have a DC of 30. Bracing against the corners reduces that by 5. Thus, DC 25.
A knotted Rope with walls to brace against has a DC of 0. Bracing against the corners reduces that by 5. The walls of Acid Pit are described as slippery and that adds +5. Thus, the DC is still 0.
Now that the DCs are established the question is: can you use a Rope to climb out of an Acid Pit?
Since it appears that you can choose which method you want to use the DC would be 0 (knotted rope).
How about this:
Spellcaster is tripped by a spell while spellcasting. Is there a concentration check? The rules say that non-damaging spell effects require a concentration check with a DC of the spell you suffered (even if it has no DC) + the level of the spell you are casting.
Now, if the rules say there is for non-damaging spell effects then why wouldn't there be one for non-damaging non-spell actions that are equally distracting?
Now, I am not saying that this isn't a GM call regarding the line between distraction and non-distraction. But, the RAW is that there ARE rules provided that allow the GM to make that determination.
Additionally, a distracting spell that does not do damage can cause a concentration check while casting.
CRB p206 wrote:
If the spell interferes with you or distracts you in some other way, the DC is the spell’s saving throw DC + the level of the spell you’re casting. For a spell with no saving throw, it’s the DC that the spell’s saving throw would have if a save were allowed (10 + spell level + caster’s ability score).
It is not just damage options that you can ready. You cannot use one single part of the book to state what the options are. There may be options in other sections of the book.
Speaker for the Dead, that isn't entirely correct. The FAQ stated that you do get the damage for the direct hit but not the splash damage.
So the correct answer is both yes and no.
Here is the FAQ Link for everyone.
Just a note: Stand Still does not work with a reach weapon. The target must be adjacent to you.
To add to what Epimetheus said: Pin Down is an 11th level fighter feat from Ultimate Combat. Here is the feat description:
Ultimate Combat p113 wrote:
Benefit: Whenever an opponent you threaten takes a 5-foot step or uses the withdraw action, that opponent provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If the attack hits, you deal no damage, but the targeted creature is prevented from making the move action that granted a 5-foot step or the withdraw action and does not move.
I also agree with the idea of creating difficult terrain. You can do this yourself with a potion of Entangle, a potion of Obscuring Mist (poor visibility causes double movement costs) +Goz Mask (to see through the mist), or any other low level spell that creates difficult terrain.
I don't have a problem with CN, NE, or CE provided people recognize that you cannot be the wrong type of CN, NE, or CE. IE: Don't create a PC with that alignment that cannot get along. Nothing about those alignments means that you should be a jerk to close allies.
Jaelithe, not really. They should be pretty close to evenly matched although at some levels I would give the advantage to the Anti-Paladin due to the more offensive nature of his Touch of Corruption, Cruelties, and Auras.
Additionally, the Anti-Paladin removes the Paladin's immunity to fear.
Then again, Litany of Righteousness is overpowered and could finish the Anti-Paladin before he has a chance.
A different way of looking at this:
If an encounter is CR 7 and your APL is 7 then you should give level 7 treasure (as per Table 12-5).
However, if an encounter is CR 7 and your APL is 8, well, you still give level 7 treasure (because the encounter is 'easy').
Similarly, if an encounter is CR 9 and your APL is 8, you give them level 9 treasure (because the encounter is 'harder').
So, based on that you can look at it as the CR of the encounter is what is determining the treasure being handed out rather than the APL of the group. While not *exactly* RAW (Rules as Written) it may help you figure out that element of the rules.
One other note: this system (Pathfinder) is still fundamentally the same as D&D 3.X (3.0/3.5). While Paizo has made some changes they are mostly cosmetic. The treasure award system is basically the same as the 3.X system (the values are different).
DigitalMage, while 3.5 may have been more accurate I find the PF version of Temporary Ability bonuses (pre-FAQ) and Ability Score Damage to be quick and easy.
The 3.5 way of accounting for temporary ability score bonuses and ability score damage usually brought the game to a screeching halt while people tried to figure out all the effective changes.