The thing is, "it increases WBL by 50%" says as little about power level as "we rolled stats and I ended up with a 30 pb worth"; if those 30pb are 14's across the board, a standard 20pb char will have more actual power in-game.
Likewise, it's not that relevant to look at the percentage of WBL increase but rather what you can actually get out of it. Even scribe scroll can double your WBL, if the only thing you own is scrolls. But having a very large part of your wealth tied up in scrolls, or even such a wide category as wondrous items, is less power than freely spending it.
Take two characters:
The second one would probably end up more powerful, since she can spend the cash on what she needs the most, regardless of whether it's weapons and armor or if it's wondrous items or potions or scrolls. Just like a char with a 20pb will end up more powerful than one who has rolled all 14's, despite that being equal to a 30pb.
But all of this is pretty much off-topic, as the amount of wealth increase is the same regardless of whether you can skip requirements or not - in fact, I'd say it's usually more beneficial to craft stuff that's somewhere around your level than spending all your cash on a single higher-level item, as costs increase exponentially.
A magic item crafter can spend 2k to craft a CoR +2.
So you end up with either:
The last one is possible for a wizard without skipping any prerequisites, and not noticably weaker than the first option.
Diego Rossi wrote:
WBL is not a religion. WBL is about placing treasure in the game. Unless you play "railroad, the game on tracks" character can take any action they want to earn money. It can have consequences, but you really go around saying to the rogue: "No, you can't pickpocket the people in the town market." or refuse any of the hundred ways with which the characters can make money outside of adventuring?
Sure, but if the game group does not ignore WBL but rather try to be in line with it there's no issue.
But on that, doesn't the rogue having pick-pocket show an example of an at least equally problematic situation? While the crafter crafts a luckblade for 43k, couldn't the rogue just pick pocket one for free?
Honestly, I don't see a character having an extra +1 to saves is really that big of a deal. He's payd 2000 gp and a feat to have +2 to saves, instead of paying 2000 gp for +1 to saves and +1 to AC and having the feat left over. Seems a fair trade.
And the example is pretty far from having a luckblade.
Yeah, I was using "large cities" in the common meaning, not the game term meaning. Sorry for my sloppy writing.
You can still rule that the material needed to enchant an item is a single piece of "something" worth as much as it is required to make the item, but ti seem a bit arbitrary.
This is all arbitrary. But I think that if one thinks crafting is potentially problematic, one should not argue it from the viewpoint of the widest interpretation.
The luck blade is an extreme example of what you can craft, but even starting with the normal cash and items you find in an adventure you can easily increase your earning by 50-70% using 1 feat, craft wondrous items.
Sure. You absolutely can. But as long as the GM doesn't invent (or allow the players to invent) a lot of unbalanced items, the benefit will be kept in check. Costs increase exponentially; as shown above, crafting can allow you to get +1 to saves at 3rd level (and that's good for a feat!) for 1000gp (a +2 cloak for 2k rather than a +1 cloak for 1k). That's good, but I don't think it's broken good and I don't think it has much to do with the ability to ignore prerequisites.
Time isn't a big issue.
I agree that time isn't a big constraint (at lower levels at least) as long as you keep somewhat to WBL guidelines; in fact I agree that time _shouldn't_ be the main limiter. Money should be. It is with the conversion of time to money via the down-time rules that you get the unbalancing, and that can't be done with the ring.
That said, leveling while adventuring is usually quite quick (at least for AP's and the like) so if you want to craft a larger item while adventuring, it's not unlikely it will be quite in line when you finish it. If it takes 30 days to craft something while adventuring, you might have gained two levels and practically doubled your wealth during that time anyway.
Pizza Lord wrote:
Yes, that's a reasonable thing to do. Making a +3 weapon at 6th level is absolutely possible. For a non-crafter, the 9000 gold can be spent on a +2 weapon and some minor magic item like a Cloak of Protection +1.
Seems reasonable in my book.
EDIT: And for the example of 5th level, the other character would have a +1 sword, a +1 CoP and 1000 gp in other stuff available.
Diego Rossi wrote:
Assuming that the access to a scroll of wish is more limited than access to the 43k of magical supplies for creating the luckblade is again, arbitrary DM decisions. Whether the materials for magic item creation are treated as loads of small cheap parts that are available anywhere, or as a singular unit, is completely up to the DM and not stated in the rules.
For example, I think that it's a fair ruling that a luckblade that costs 25k extra in magical supplies because it replicates a spell that has a 25k diamond, would have a similar diamond as part of the item creation materials. Of course this is a DM decision, but no more arbitrary than saying the cost is made up of loads and loads of 1cp Chickens.
Look, I agree that with a certain specific subset of campaign styles crafting can be overpowered, but right now we're to assume:
These are quite a lot of assumptions, and I think that when the issue has to be exemplified with such a very specific niche of gaming, maybe that's at the point where house rules are more relevant - if you want to have a very specific campaign, quite far from what the standard assumptions of the game are, you need house rules.
^Yeah, that I can agree with. All rules have extreme variance in usefulness though. In a campaign on a stunted magic plane casters will be weaker, if there are no heavy armors in your game power attack will be even more powerful etc.
Sure, if you're in a game with LOADS of downtime but where magic items can't be bought, item creation will be overpowered. That's not what the game is designed around though.
That said, the issue with the UCa rules are in my opinion issues with UCa, not item creation, and applies equally to being able to buy stuff vastly out of the intended wealth for your level.
Diego Rossi wrote:
The percentual difference between a day and a year is much much greater than the difference between a year and ~17 months (after which you could buy the sword).
About your second comment: making a scroll of the wish spell require a 17th level caster, there is no way to bypass that limit. When making a wish blade you can have any caster level, as long as you can beat the crafting DC.
I'm not saying you should craft the scroll. I'm saying you buy it.
Also, are you sure you can let it have any caster level? It goes against this pretty specific statement by James Jacobs. Now, Jacobs isn't "the rules guy", but usually he notes that by saying "well this is how I do it at my table" or similar. This time he states it boldly, and says it's the "general rule".
BTW, you could just look at it the opposite way. View the DC of crafting as 5+5*Requirements+CL, and that people who have the requirement get a +5 bonus.
Simply, "Luckblade Craft DC: 27. If you have access to the Wish or Miracle spell, you gain a +5 bonus on checks to craft a Luckblade."
Exactly same mechanical outcome.
If you as a sorcerer invest loads and loads in getting useless spell for the purpose of crafting, yes, that might be a bad investment. You know what's also a bad investment? Putting a 16 in Strength on your sorcerer and getting the power attack/cleave line.
Pizza Lord wrote:
Try to be more concise. For me and a lot others English isn't our native language, and your paragraph long sentences become hard to understand.
But comparing investment:
A wizard at 7th level could take Craft Magic Arms and Armor and craft a Luckblade to get a wish for 43k. The craft DC is 27, so a +17 modifier is needed, likely +10 class/ranks +5 int +2 masterwork tool.
A fighter at 7th level could take Master Craftsman and CMA&A and craft a Luckblade to get a wish for 43k. +17 modifier through +10 class/ranks, +2 MC, +2 Tool, +3 Skill Focus.
A fighter, wizard or anyone else at 6th level could otherwise have Dangerously Curious trait, max Use Magic Device (unless they have it on their spell list like wizard) and buy a scroll for 29k and a scroll of Heroism or three for some hundreds. Modifier for fighter +9 class/ranks +1 curious +2 tool +3 skill focus +2 heroism.
In the cases where there is an instance of what you refer to, like 'Caster must be two times bonus provided' or 'Caster level required is 3 times bonus' such as Bracers of armor, etc. The cost is only counted as a requirement, which according to the current way they have it written, is able to be disregarded by a flat +5 no matter how powerful the item or how far from meeting the requirement you are. It only takes into account that you are disregarding 1 requirement.
Actually, in the case of weapons and armor, it is not listed as a requirement. Requirement is a specific game mechanic term, and the requirements are listed under each item. In the case of a luckblade, it's the feat and wish/miracle. The magic weapon section also states that the caster has to be of a level three times the enhancement bonus - it does not call this a "requirement". Unless there's been some errata I am not aware of, by RAW it seems you cannot craft a luckblade before level 6 (though of course, the game is built around that you'll be able to afford it around level 12-14 or so).
Diego Rossi wrote:
If they're irrelevant resources/limitations, why is "maximum effect" relevant? I mean, I could put a fan to my mouth to get maximum air, but what's the point?
And regardless, it's not always true. In the case of getting a Wish, buying a scroll is cheaper than crafting a luckblade. For ANY spell 8th level or lower buying the spell directly is cheaper than crafting the item. And with X amount of time required for the crafter to make a Sword +5 another character could have put the feat to Power Attack and bought a Sword +4.
EDIT: Now that I think about it, wheren't the required caster level for enhancement bonuses on weapons/armor one of those hardcoded things that where clarified not to be bypassable? Not that it matters, the example could as well have been a ring of protection or whatever.
If time and wealth is not a valid or relevant limitation/balancing point, the crafting feats really suck.
You spend a feat to be able to convert one irrelevant resource to another irrelevant resource, saving a bit of money by spending a bit of time, when you could have just bought the item and had the feat left for something else.
Diego Rossi: That's an issue with the newly published downtime rules (weren't those explicitly marked as optional rules? IDK, don't have UCa) and how they break the wealth by level, not an issue with crafting rules. Because instead of spending a year to craft a luckblade to get a wish, you could spend like 7 months and buy a scroll of wish.
Pizza Lord wrote:
But really, absolute gold piece price is much less relevant than relative cost compared to wealth. For a 10th level character it costs half their WBL to get a single wish. For a 17th level caster it costs 6% of their wealth. And that's for a PC, who are extremely rich compared to NPC's of similar level.
You know what items typically grant a wish twice a month? Artifact level plot devices which resemble large near-immovable rocks and usually grant the spell only once a year, during the solstice, to the ruler of the kingdom to use to benefit his people or in dire need, with the sacrifice of a virgin (maybe the last one is optional, but probably some sacrifice or offering of somekind).
That may be that way in your games. But in Pathfinder, getting a wish is a lot easier regardless of class.
It is equally available to anyone that make a similar investment. Or if you just go to a large town and buy the spellcasting service for 26530 gp. Which is even cheaper.
I don't. But if a player really really wanted to spend half their wealth, two feats, and a maxed skill to get that +1 inherent bonus to strength, yeah, big deal.
You do realize they're like 1k cheaper to craft than to buy, right? And more relevant, the first point at which that would be affored would be 9th level for the first single tome, so you could get the second +1 from your wishblade. Oh wonderful, spending all your wealth for a +1 strength modifier! Hah, those poor fools buying +2 swords and +3 armors for the money.
So... no. Using a Luckblade wouldn't stack with the +1 inherent bonuses he already has to every ability.
Oh, to every ability, then by WBL she's around level 14 to craft the luckblade to? So at level 14 she can kinda gain nearly the power of a very specific spell a 17th level character can cast by spending all her money at it?
You have to admit that it sounds pretty silly that your 3rd level cleric could get to make that item, (probably dropping the base DC to CL 7 by using minimum Wizard level, since CL 10 would have trivial benefits only in the case of a dispel) while once he reaches level 9 and actually has access to the scrying spell... he loses access to a spell slot for the entire duration of the creation. You'd agree right?
The 3rd level PC cleric will have around 3000 gp, give or take. It doesn't have a full cult behind it to be able to afford that. But since we allow crafting use-activated instant-use items of any spell and allowing bypassing the prereq for the same price as potions, she could probably afford a single scrying spell ritual, though that'd cost about 1/4 of all her available resources.
While I cannot provide an actual build, I just wanted to say this:
As an NPC villain, you want to focus a LOT on defense. If you optimize it for offense (as PC's tend to be) you'll either need to make her easy enough that she'll quite likely be one-round killed by the party, or you make her powerful enough to survive that but then there's a high risk of a quick TPK.
Don't be afraid of giving her stats that aren't available with a standard point buy or so, or otherwise "breaking the rules" on npc creation.
Focus on defense and versatility, and treat her level as two-three lower for it.
But then when it comes to flavor, there's a pretty big question: Is she supposed to be a spellcaster? In that case I might suggest bard or inquisitor, though you also need her to be intelligent if she's a plotter.
Compared to the existing Wall of Iron and Wall of Stone, the above is NOT a 6th level spell. It should be the same level as Wall of Stone at most.
Huh? The only differences are:+ Can be used for construction, crafting etc as long as there are no fine details
- 200 gp extra material component
- Two less hardness
Compared to wall of stone, it costs 250 gp more and cannot be used to make bridges automatically, but has _twice_ the hit points, 10 higher DC to break through, can be used as a material for crafting, and can be tipped.
My change slightly nerfs in-combat usage but enhances out of combat usage. I don't see how it becomes so much weaker as to compare to wall of stone. Unless you mass out the spell over and over and over, the material cost is neglible at the point you have access to it.
I don't see how paying 40k is getting wishes "easy" by level 10, with a hyperspecialized character like the non-caster you mentioned. That's about 2/3 the WBL for a character, that has also invested two or three feats, an 18 intelligence (for a non-caster) and seven skill ranks into it. To get what? A +1 inherent bonus to strength?
I actually LOVE that you can skip requirements - so much that it's a large part of the casting system in my world, it's the main method with which low-level casters can get of some nasty effects, through long "crafting" rituals.
I love the fact that a 3rd level caster, say a local cultist leader, can use her magical expertise to craft a Crystal Ball for scrying, if she has the funds for it, even if she isn't powerful enough to just cast is as a spell yet.
Ipslore the Red wrote:
I see no issue with it having value; so does the stone from a wall of stone or the ability to quickly clean plates of prestidigitation. It is only when the value vastly surpasses the effort that I think there's an issue.
As you see in my version, the material component costs 250 gp. At the lowest possible caster level, according to Weird, you'd get 225gp worth of bad iron. Even at the highest level the surplus would be small enough that you'd get much more cash from doing other stuff. Earning a few hundreds per casting is nothing to just popping onto some elemental demiplane of really nice diamonds and getting a few or killing the demon lord of ultra lootz.
I'd like to add a third that actually works quite well:3) Use some kind of hero points.
As a compromise between the two methods, what about this as a house-ruled version?
You cause a flat, vertical iron wall to spring into being. The wall inserts itself into any surrounding nonliving material if its area is sufficient to do so. The wall cannot be conjured so that it occupies the same space as a creature or another object. It must always be a flat plane, though you can shape its edges to fit the available space.
A wall of iron is 1 inch thick per four caster levels. You can double the wall's area by halving its thickness. Each 5-foot square of the wall has 30 hit points per inch of thickness and hardness 8. A section of wall whose hit points drop to 0 is breached. If a creature tries to break through the wall with a single attack, the DC for the Strength check is 25 + 2 per inch of thickness.
If you desire, the wall can be created vertically resting on a flat surface but not attached to the surface, so that it can be tipped over to fall on and crush creatures beneath it. The wall is 50% likely to tip in either direction if left unpushed. Creatures can push the wall in one direction rather than letting it fall randomly. A creature must make a DC 40 Strength check to push the wall over. Creatures with room to flee the falling wall may do so by making successful Reflex saves. Any Large or smaller creature that fails takes 10d6 points of damage while fleeing from the wall. The wall cannot crush Huge and larger creatures.
Like any iron wall, this wall is subject to rust, perforation, and other natural phenomena. The iron is very impure and brittle; while it can be worked, it cannot hold an edge or be used for fine instruments. It has lower hardness than most iron and it's market value is just 1/5th that of normal iron.
Apart from what Xaratheus said above, I would like to add that if it's your first time as a game master, you should probably not use any house rules, and keep to low levels.
There's a heck of a lot of rules to keep track of as GM, and the game is quite delicately balanced; though balance isn't perfect, it's quite good at low levels and is very easily upset by houserules, especially if one makes house rules without the experience necessary to predict the effect of them.
But apply rules consistently, whether they are house rules or not; not applying them consistently can very easily lead to favoritism (or appear as favoritism).
I must also second Xaratheus advice: "When in doubt, ask the group.".
Just wanted to add that theres been examples of this befpre in D&D; in Sigil of the planescape setting, buildings are generally made out metal and stone "because tose can be made by magic" while wood is a semi-luxury that has to be imported from other planes (mostly Arborea iirc).
While this doesnt add anything to the rules question, just wanted to say its been done before.
The cost of materials to craft an item _with the craft skill_ is 1/3 the market price.
If one claims you can use fabricate to craft things that does not at all relate to the craft skill (say, making timber out of sawdust or diamonds out of diamond dust or whatever), that the crafting of such things do not relate to the craft skill, then for that application we can't go to the craft skill to look for adjudication - and that's where the "1/3 price" is stated.
I'm not saying that if you fabricate a sword it doesn't cost 1/3 just because you use fabricate, I'm saying that if one claims that fabricate can be used outside of the context of Crafting (as the skill) then it also needs to be ruled without using that skill. And then it's not explicitly 1/3 of the material cost.
One issue with the whole "you can craft stuff without involving the craft skill so this can get you loads of money" is that the craft skill is where it's stated that the material cost is 1/3 of the market price.
So either you use the Craft rules, and then you can't fabricate diamonds of diamond dust.
Ged had inner power, that's why he went to become a mage to begin with, didn't he? The whole "conjuring mist to save the village" part was more inner power wasn't it?
Willow I agree with though. One might want to add Hermione from the Harry Potter books when discussing "no magical lineage", and her magical expertise clearly came from superior studiousness, though she might have had inner power too? Never delved that deep into the HP universe.
It should be noted that while there where approximations of ability, there where never a finished build - due partly to the inventor saying "when at least one of those god wizard proponents posts an actual build, I will" (paraphrasing, not actual quote). And it seems no wizard ever did - it was all Shroedinger's Wizards all the way (hence the name of AM's lance - "Observed State").
Here's a thread about some of it:
Everything is consistent with the material being a focus - except that it isn't. It's a (M)aterial component, not a (F)ocus. And "A material component consists of one or more physical substances or objects that are annihilated by the spell energies in the casting process"
Say we want to create bricks out of 10 cubic feet of clay. We have three possible interpretations:
1. The material component is the same as the target (RAW possible, certainly not RAI)
In this case, in the line "Components V, S, M (the original material, which costs the same amount as the raw materials required to craft the item to be created)", "the original material" refers to needing the 10ft of clay you want to become bricks.
So you cast the spell, the clay is annihilated (as per the magic chapter), the spell fails.
2. The material component is not the same as the target (RAW possible, potentially RAI)
In this case, in the line "Components V, S, M (the original material, which costs the same amount as the raw materials required to craft the item to be created)", "the original material" refers to needing 10ft³ of clay as a component in addition to the 10ft³ you have as a target. Noting this as "the original material" rather than just "material" may be to clarify that you need clay, not bricks, as a component.
3. The material component is incorrectly labeled as such and is actually a focus (Likely RAI, but not RAW)
Basically how it's usually run - you cast the spell and the clay becomes bricks, without usage of any material component.
The Poshment wrote:
AFAIK, it was Batty Bat, a young red dragon companion from leadership (IIRC, he decided not to use a synthesist since it seemed a little bit too abusive).
Though of course, the perception thingy really depends on how RAW you go. If you go by strict RAW, he probably couldn't see the tarrasque at 500ft - but then again, neither could a wizard.
Tthat depends on if "material" in "original material" refers to type of material or a specific piece of material. Both interpretations work.
However, the component section in the magiv rules state that material components are consumed (i think the word is annihilated but i dont have the book here), so while a spell certainly can have the same target and component, it doesnt wok very well as the components is consumed. So then you turn the diamond dust into a consumed diamond. Not very useful.
Note the difference between fabricate and other changing spells like Shillelagh which tend to not have the transmuted item as a component. When few spwlls have that, the fact that fabricate does indicates (though of course not proves( tthat it works differently compared to them.
Actually, while the spell can be interpreted like that, its only one of the possible ways. It is also completely valid (and in some ways yhe only way the spell functions by RAW) such that you need twice that much material- both the material component (which is consumed when casting) and the target (which is transformed).
So you argument is that because the spell creates a magic extradimensional space, and doesn't say you cannot fold it, you can fold it. And then when discussing what should happen, we shouldn't apply the lack of rules but rather ASSUME that magic extradimensional spaces work like hypothetical mundane four-dimensional anomalies, and then assume what happens when you bend one of those.
No, that's not RAW saying you can. Not more than my super-pee.
I'd like to see a quote on those being magic extradimensional spaces.
As far as I know, they are neither magic nor extradimensional but rather fully mundane topological deviations of spacetime. And then there's the fact that so far the evidence for them even existing (rather than just being possible) is quite limited.
No, it's more like "hmm, we found this magic sword and 1000 gp, should we sell the sword and split the half value that comes from it, or should Sarah the fighter get the sword and Pete the wizard get the gold, even though it amounts to less? well, I guess it evens out in the long term..."
At least that's how our groups have done it mostly.
Neither is there anything in the rules against being born with eyes that gives you wish 10/day from 1st level.
Lack of a prohibiting rule does not mean that RAW supports something.
That's a fine house rule and all, but there's nothing in the RAW to suggest anything like it.
but that has no berring on the fact that this does work.
No it doesn't. To work, you'd need the rules to provide for:- 10x10ft sheets of paper.
- The ability to fold/roll/whatever such paper
- Rules saying it's harmful to leave a dimensional space into another/get "folded" yourself.
- Rules saying you can fold a created pit on a paper.
All these things are non-existant as far as I know.
second there is no stipulation that something rigid is needed for create pit or that the hole its self is rigid.
Neither is there a stipulation that it can be folded.
Now you might say there's nothing saying you CAN'T fold it, but then I'll just say there's nothing saying you can't live while leaving it when it's folded.
oh and you could accomplish the same effect by rolling the paper up instead of folding it, i just like the visual of forcing a person into a picasso painting form.
Nowhere in the RAW does it state that paper can be folded, rolled or anything like it, nor even that there exists sheets of paper larger than 10x10 ft. To paraphrase you: "I think once you go beyond the written rules of the equipment, now you're cheating".