No, I'm arguing the line in the Feat is ambiguous. As I've said many times. I've just been trying to get you to admit you have to make an inference that leads to something so restrictive it belittles two feats and would cripple any PC to take them.
My argument has grounds that the prerequisite of Master Craftsman says ANY craft or profession. Under your interpretation, this means every craft and profession can be used to make some item.
What items are applicable to profession (midwife, merchant, baker, cook, gambler, gardener, courtesan, farmer, shepherd)? I'm sure you can abstractly come up with a couple items for each one, but it'll be a stretch and how does a couple items justify two feats. It's ludicrous.
You're right. It makes perfect sense. The developers intended for non crafters to have to take 2 feats for a chance to only upgrade your sword. Seems legit. Two feats to function as worse than one alone is what I look for in a feat. When I take Power Attack and Cleave, I just play like cleave doesn't work and power attack only gives me a +1 to damage for every -1 to hit with my Greatsword.
And now that I have all the prerequisites to take craft wondrous items too, I can take it... Oh but wait. I can only make weapons and this feat doesn't help me now. I wish the developers didn't create a feat that I could take for absolutely no benefit.
Do you really think the people that created an entire gaming system based around fantasy tropes do not know about all of the fantasy tropes you argued for? Do you think they would make something as restrictive as your interpretation in an attempt to introduce these concepts?
You are not ignoring a rule. You have another rule, the feat, that is superseding the original rule. Without the feat, you cannot get around this rule.
Why is this even a big deal? This is what you wanted for non casters and are attempting to devise new feats or a new system to replace it.
Is it really that you just need accreditation and a need to create something new?
Just drop the assumption that you require the specific skill listed to match your chosen skill and you'll notice you don't have to infer anything. The mechanics work how the words are literally stated. If they needed to match up, it would literally tell you, instead of a line that says you must use the chosen skill for the check to create the item.
Does it seem like its wrong? Doesn't matter because the feat literally tells you this is what you do.
If I said solve 4+3x2 and told you that you must do addition first, it would seem wrong. Order of operations says multiply first and you would get 10. Instead I told you to do addition first so you get 14.
The item: weapon +1
The check to create: DC 8 Spellcraft or Craft (weapon)
Chosen skill: profession (midwife)
You must use profession (midwife) for the DC 8 Spellcraft or Craft (weapon) check to make a weapon +1. Sounds wrong. Doesn't matter because the feat told you to do it this way.
Maybe aiding in the birthing of so many children taught you the magic of life and birth. You apply this magic to make magic items.
As to why each item doesn't have a skill listed, because the only time a skill comes into play is with master craftsman and that would add ridiculous word count if included on every single item you could craft.
The skill comes into play with casters who don't need master craftsman. They don't have to use Spellcraft to make items if they don't want to. The option is there for casters to use a craft or profession.
Ohhhhhh GM discretion now. So why didn't they list skills in each item entry? So why can't there be GM discretion on making magic arms and armor? A blacksmith can make a sword, armor, or a shield. They've done so through out history and in myth and legend. Much like all those tropes you liked mentioning for your argument. Seems like you're just being arbitrary now. We can GM fiat one way but not the other.
When are you going to find any craft or profession skill requirement listed to validate the master craftsman feat. By your own interpretation, non casters still can't make wondrous items, but the Master Craftsman feat clearly states that they can.
I've already provided a solid analysis and application of the rules that show how the Master Craftsman feat works with both craft magic arms and armor. You keep clinging to that burning strawman because you can't find anything to validate the use of CWI with your interpretation.
If you can't make the rules work according to your interpretation, it usually means your interpretation is wrong. Generally people are willing to see things from another angle to see if they got it right or wrong. I looked at it from your angle and CWI will not work. You refuse to see things from any other perspective.
Except the specific skills are listed for the items...
Find me a listed craft or profession skill requirement for a headband of vast intelligence, a belt of giant strength, a tome of clear thought, or any wondrous item.
Your strawman has been on fire for a long time, you just can't smell the smoke.
Let's try defining the variables with examples and apply it to the sentence.
PRD from the Master Craftsman feat wrote:
You must use (1)the chosen skill for (2)the check to create (3)the item.
The item: Weapon +1
Check to create: DC 8 Spellcraft or Craft (Weapon)
The chosen skill: Profession (Merchant)
You must use Profession (merchant) for the DC 8 Spellcraft or Craft (weapon) check to create a weapon +1.
Rinse and repeat with any variable, but you will always use your chosen skill to make whatever.
I get that you think you should have to apply your skill in some appropriate fashion for the feel to be right, but the intent is to allow non casters to craft. Not to let them craft a few things, thus making 2 feats feel like a trait.
Wouldn't it be a greater inference to assume a special exemption to the rule?
It literally says "you must use the chosen skill for the check to make the item".
PRD from the Master Craftsman feat wrote:
You must use the chosen skill for the check to create the item.
It is not an inference when something literally tells you thats how it works.
To make a magic item you must make a skill check. It could be Spellcraft, it could be a profession check, it could be a craft check. It doesn't matter what the check is because they are all checks to create the item.
Master Craftsman specifically states that, for the skill check, you must use your chosen skill. This is literal.
It does not say that the skill you chose for Master Craftsman must match the skill required for the manufacture of the mundane item. This is an inference.
If I say use your Dex for your attack rolls it means use your Dex for your attack rolls. It does not mean attack rolls are normally done with Str so I must use my Str and using Dex is an inference.
The disconnect I think you guys are having is 'for the check to create the item'. You are creating a magic item, not a mundane item.
This is your inference only. Nothing in the feats say you have to craft any of the mundane items to be enchanted.
Fluff is not mechanics nor any dictation of what has to be done. It is fluff that gives flavor and nothing more.
You completely didn't read the entire sentence. The rest of the sentence says its a skill you possess at least 5 ranks in. They literally stated the line you said they didn't, to save on word count.
Skill points are the precursor to skill ranks. You spend skill points in a skill that give you ranks. Your ranks cannot exceed your character level. The term you are looking for is skill modifier. When you total up all the bonuses like class, stat, items, and your ranks, you find a number that is your skill modifier.
The bold section is you making an inference. The line says "you must use the chosen skillfor the check to create the item.
This means that if the check to create the item is a DC 15 Spellcraft check, you must use your chosen skill for the check to create the item.
The line specifically says the DC increases for any necessary spell requirements. This is all it says. There is no mention of necessary skills. This is another inference.
The creativity in the readings is on you inferring judgement. You've been adding lines that do not exist because you think you have to craft the item being enchanted. Read the text and treat it literally.
The Master Craftsman feat does not let you make magic items. It lets you treat ranks in a skill as your effective caster level to qualify for craft magic arms and armor AND craft wondrous items.
It is the two magic item creation feats that are allowing you to imbue an item with magic and there is nothing that says you have to craft this item from scratch.
I just have a problem with your methods only. You don't use any quantitative analysis and just state opinion. Opinions are not analytical tools.
I don't care about you wanting to change rules and home brew. But sometimes home brew isn't needed once you analyze something properly.
Under the current rules making a +1, +2, +3, +4, +5 weapon/armor/shield is DC 8, 11, 14, 17, 20 respectively. A 5th level crafter with a 7 intelligence can have;
5 ranks + 3 class - 2 stat (+1 trait) = +6(7) Spellcraft. Take 10 and they're at 16(17).
A level 5 PC is capable of dumping intelligence to 7 and still make a +4 weapon/armor/shield, if not for the built in clause of 3x CL per +1 enhancement.
The biggest difference of caster and non caster is the need of 1 more feat for the non caster and the level at which non casters can start making magic items. Lv 7 for non casters.
Taking WBL into account, the caster will not have that great of an advantage by starting a few levels earlier.
How is "you must use this skill to craft this item" unclear?
It isn't. The entire master craftsman feat is in reference to a skill that you are using as the prerequisite for the feat. The prerequisite states ANY craft or profession skill that you have 5 ranks in. So you choose the skill you have 5 ranks in and that skill is the 'chosen skill' and every reference to a skill in the feat.
It does not say the skill listed in the crafting rules. This is a feat that is more specific than the general rules of crafting. It is the feat that is superseding the other text.
Further, how is "Skill Used in Creation" unclear as to that being the skill you use to create an item?
When you enhance a +1 weapon as a caster, you are 'creating' a +1 weapon. It does not say you must craft this item from scratch. This falls under the magic item creation rules.
Seriously, if you want to try to get technical, a profession skill does not let you craft anything. A profession skill is a skill that allows you to know how to run a business. It's your job. The only skill that has rules for making items, is the craft skill. So if you're allowed to qualify with a profession skill, how do you 'create' an item by your understanding?
If under "Creating Magic Weapons" it said "Skill Used in Creation: Spellcraft, Craft (bows) (for magic bows and arrows), or Craft (weapons) (for all other weapons)." would that not be clear which skills are to be used for each thing?
Under the item creation rules, it does say what skills are required to make items. This is under the base, normal, conditions that apply. A caster can use a profession skill to make the craft check for wondrous items or even craft armor to create magic armor and shields.
When you apply the feat, the conditions are no longer normal but are modified by the feat.
You also need to understand that it's not the master craftsman feat that allows you to make magic items. The feat is allowing your ranks in a skill act as a caster level so you can qualify for the magic item creation feats. Craft magic arms and armor and craft wondrous items is what allows you to create magic items, much like it does for a caster.
Nope, I was just wrong. I thought you still had to roll to hit on a coup de grace to overcome things like deflection bonus or any bonus that you don't have to bring to bear like your dexterity. Or the luck of rolling a 1 and something unforeseen happening.
Didn't realize the ability was so ridiculous. If you get to focus so much that you auto hit and auto crit, only provoking an AoO seems like a minor penalty. At least should be foregoing your Dex or something.
So reduce the need for feats only to implement the need for skill focus?
Youre not understanding what I mean by the developers balanced this. You're implementing rules that are conflicting with other rules forcing you to change more rules that will, again, conflict with more rules. You need to do mathematical analysis to see how it balances out vs. the necessity to take other things as a requirement. This is what I've been saying to all of you for a long while in several threads. This is the practical method of analysis in a game based on numbers.
No one needs skill focus to do much of anything in this game. Acrobatics to avoid AoO is one of the only examples I can think of. They are flavor feats to make you a pinnacle of your skill. You've just turned them into a tax.
So I can't include monsters from other games but you can include tropes that exist in myths and legends? How is this not hypocritical. Those myths and legends weren't governed by the pathfinder rule set.
You can already craft while adventuring or in towns. It's not like crafting is so exclusive that you can't do anything else. It already functions within the game while doing everything else.
The trait works the same for all crafters. I never said it was exclusive to casters, I said it will result in an extra 100gp every time you make a new headband. This means that the trait itself gains even more power over other traits and would be closer to par with a feat.
As I said, all this does is add to the time of crafting. There are already ways of doing that without making changes to impact other areas of the game.
Let me clarify for others exactly what it is you're claiming is broken.
Now discuss, provide proofs, and come to a concise conclusion on how each of these are broken, or not broken. Apply proper methods to ensure practical evaluation.
"Let's discuss the problems with the overall system and how it could be fixed"
This does belong in the suggestions/home brew. You are discussing something and suggesting ways to change it.
If you want to discuss the flaws of a system, the point of the discussion is to figure out what is considered to be a flaw in the system and not to make suggestions to fix it.
You also need to establish a practical method to evaluate the system and not just base it on opinions like, I think this, this, and this are bad or broken.
When a thread begins containing posts and a general atmosphere that should fall under a different forum, the moderators move them.
The main thrust is the general atmosphere. Someone daring to make a suggestion is not, 'posts', plural. But when other people begin giving more opinion on the suggestion, the original discussion is derailed and is now a discussion about a suggestion.
The bold is exactly the purpose of the discussion forum. You discuss the rules. A mechanical breakdown of rules and how they interact with the game system is a discussion. As soon as you start suggesting things to resolve the flaws, you are making rules suggestions. If enough people decide to continue on your suggestion, the thread becomes a rules suggestion thread.
There is also a lot of community interaction on here and many, many threads. Moderators can't be expected to read every single post ever made. This is what the flagging system is designed for. When a thread gets derailed from its purpose, or if a thread changes to something that should exist under another forum, you can flag it to bring it to the attention of the moderators. Or for the various other reasons you get to choose from when flagging. Differing in opinion from someone else does not constitute derailing.
You're right that it takes 24 hours for the bonus to be considered permanent so you get the skill points. But....
Take real ranks in the skill to make headbands of vast intelligence and whatever else those ranks provide. Set aside 4000gp to make two +2 headbands with the skills you need. When you finish with one that you need, you sell it and don the other one. In the time you are making another headband, the new one you put on will be attuned to you.
All this has done is increased time slightly. You could just change the amount of gp value crafted in a day from 1000gp to 500gp a day and not change any other mechanic. Halving the gp value crafted a day will probably cause a greater hindrance to crafting a lot of items than the many headbands method.
I don't like arguing with traits because this is the fault of the trait, but hedge magician will become even more valuable with your system as well. Perpetually selling headbands will net you 100gp per headband.
Paizo messageboards wrote:
Paizo messageboards wrote:
It tells you, explicitly, what each forum is used for under the section heading. When a thread begins containing posts and a general atmosphere that should fall under a different forum, the moderators move them.
If you were discussing the crafting rules in the discussion forums, you are strictly discussing the rules as they are now. Giving a breakdown of mechanics, talking about interaction with other rules, feats, skills, etc... When you start saying the rules are broken and should be like this, you're making a rules suggestion.
The discussion part should end when you come to a concise conclusion that something works, doesn't, or falls somewhere between the extremes. Then a new thread gets created in the suggestions forum, quoting the initial thread for reference, and you can formulate all you want. But you must formulate, ie. create or devise methodically. If there is no method, your results are ambiguous.
The formulation is the part where math usually gets involved, and rules application and integration. This ensures a balanced approach that covers the potential failings of a rule set.
Don't compare this to a wizard. Or any class that uses intelligence as a primary. They are a minority.
Lv. 5 Anything non intelligence primary.
5 ranks + 3 class + 1 stat(2 the most) + 2 tools (+1 trait) = 9(11)
Doesn't see like a level 5 will hit the DCs. Add skill focus(so now you've added more fear tax) increases the total while taking 10 to 22(24). Still can't hit that DC 25. Haven't even attempted using a modifier for accelerated crafting.
You guys have to realize that the designers ran the numbers. They did tests to check for balance to make this aspect of the game fun and easy for everyone. Non casters just need 1 feat more than non casters.
You said you wanted to make it easier for non casters, but you're making it harder for everyone.
There's many aspects of the game you're not accounting for. And I said many spells, such as the noted dispel magic. What about anti magic field? That legendary beholder from other fantasy realms now has its most powerful ability nerfed. Or most of spells of the abjuration school.
If you really want to make items that do what magical items do non-magically they need to be more expensive than equivalent magical items, since they can't be suppressed by anti-magic fields or dispel magic, nor be destroyed by mage's disjunction.
This, this, and more this. Like I said in the other thread, this affects a lot more than just dispel magic and the abjurist. Abjuration spells are an entire school of magic that affect several classes.
Legendary items would be worth far more than magic items now. You can dispel the enchantments on an enemies weapons and have the barbarian sunder it as though it were mundane. This can't happen to legendary weapons.
You guys don't get that you're attempting to integrate an entirely new system without checking what it will impact. You're making every caster worse while attempting to make non casters better. Except your attempts are only making non casters worse than what the current system allows too.
Before I add to it, average damage on a die is usually listed at half max + 0.5.
Greatsword: 2d6 = 7
Monk: a Sohei cannot gain weapon training heavy blades and cannot flurry with it. There is ways it can be done with level dips but not under your defined constraints. I will indulge you on the math though. When flurrying you also only gain 1x str.
Currently, giving a weapon a +1 enhancement is a DC 8 for both, casters and non casters. Your proposal makes it near impossible for anyone using it to enchant weapons until they have some outrageous rank bonus.
Crafting a mundane exotic weapon is a DC 18 craft check.
Yes, that works, but to me, there is some charm in being able to do something that caster's cant. That look on the pesky wizard trying to dispel the master dwarfs battleaxe and too late realizing that there's no magic in it - just pure, perfect craftsmanship cutting into it's head.
So this has been about hating casters all along and not wanting them to make nice things.
This suggestion breaks spells, such as the noted dispel magic, and many other of the games current systems. You now have magic that isn't magic and an abjurist can't do anything about it. Why convolute a system that works into something that ruins more than it helps?
So now a 2000gp (crafted price) headband of vast intellect becomes the most useful item in the game.
Don't have the skill to make the item you need? Accelerated crafting for 2 days and now you do. Sell it when you're done and make another one with the next skill.
Eventually WBL will scale to a point that you can have as many of these as you need to do anything you want, and it will have no impact on you.
You're probably right. The magic is coming from the player having the crafting feat and knowing how to apply magic to the items.
And since the ability says at it "removes the hand of artifice", it would be reduced to a pile of materials prior to crafting.
But, wouldn't that mean there are different materials for each item and getting back the materials used to imbue the axe may not be the same for other items?
A rope with a wall to brace against, or a knotted rope, or a rope affected by the rope trick spell. DC 5
Climbing a corner where you can brace against perpendicular walls. Subtract 5 from the DC.
A free hanging knotted rope is of equal challenge as an unknotted rope with a wall to brace against.
If you have one person capable of climbing, they can hammer pitons in, or get to the top and drop the 200 feet of rope. With the rope, it's a DC 10 climb check to move half speed instead of a quarter and would then only be 14 skill checks to reach the top. DC 20 check with the pitons, and 14 checks, or 27 at DC 15. It will take roughly 1 hour to climb and hammer in pitons. Same DCs as the pitons if you can climb a corner.
1 rank + 3 class + 2 climbers kit + str mod + take 10 = 16+str mod
A character with one rank and 18 str can do this at level one as long as they have no armor giving an armor check penalty. If they do, remove armor before climbing.
In the corner or with pitons, no str is required to move at normal speed.
With a rope, every PC can do this with no ranks as long has they have a str of at least 10.
What's the level of the PCs and the classes? This shouldn't be too hard if they're prepared a little. Most PCs carry the standard 50 ft of rope, so it may depend on the number of ropes available.
Stacking refers to the act of adding together bonuses or penalties that apply to one particular check or statistic. Generally speaking, most bonuses of the same type do not stack. Instead, only the highest bonus applies. Most penalties do stack, meaning that their values are added together. Penalties and bonuses generally stack with one another, meaning that the penalties might negate or exceed part or all of the bonuses, and vice versa.
James Jacobs on headbands of vast intelligence:
James Jacobs wrote:
FAQ on headbands of vast intelligence:
It turns it into raw 'natural' material. Magic is not natural, it's magic. It would be reduced to the raw natural material of the item broken down. A mundane item is always made of 1/3 it's market value in materials. So the battle axe is being reduced to 1/3 x 310gp = 103gold and 33 silver worth of iron.
Technically, there is no skill points on the item. The skill points are coming from the bonus you receive from the +2 intelligence. The reason skills got linked to items was because people thought you could pick any skill with an intelligence headband, which meant taking it off and putting it back on would allow you to pick a new skill. There was an official response to this, where the developers did not intend it to be like that so they said it should be bound to a specific skill.
So if an item gives you a +2 intelligence bonus, you receive one skill rank per level. If you do not receive the +2 intelligence bonus, you do not receive the skill rank per level because your intelligence did not go up to warrant the skill gain.
In the stacking rules it says only the highest bonus applies. This means that any bonus that isn't the highest, does not apply. If you do not get the bonus to intelligence, you do not get the bonus skill rank per level.
Edit: an item that grants +5 competence bonus is 2500gp. +20 is 40,000gp according to the pricing methods provided. The Ioun stone is 8000gp based on the pricing for a +2 stat item that is slotless, as though you made the headband of vast intellect slotless. I would also say 8000gp to get 1-20 ranks in a skill is too cheap. I value ranks higher than a bonus because ranks in skills are used as prerequisites for many other things.
Note the order in which those comments were said. He changed his mind after reading the feat again, like he said.
That particular skill is a reference to the rules of the Master Craftsman feat where you choose one of ANY craft or profession skill.
Your assertion makes no sense. If I can choose ANY craft or profession and choose Craft (stone masonry) or profession (midwife), what items will I be able to make?
If you had to pick the skills listed in the magic item creation rules section, it would say so, so players couldn't take skills that are entirely unusable to make items with.
Craft magic arms and armor teaches you how to make magic weapons and armor.
Craft Wondrous items teaches you how to make wondrous items.
None of them teach you to make the mundane version of items. You either make the mundane item using craft skills, the fabricate spell, or you buy them.
My basis is on the books, not a modern day interpretation on tv. And foolish at times doesn't make one a fool.
Inherent: Existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute.
Having a high intelligence, inherently gives you more skill points.
It might not carry the descriptor like the magic tomes do, but they are inherent bonuses.
I've said he's free to use house rules as much as he wants. This thread is in the house rule forum. What I'm not getting is that by stating the RAW includes everything you need already, it makes it as broad as he wants. This is the point of the discussion.
He wants a feat to allow more.
The feat already does, by RAW.
He claims it doesn't so he makes new feats that do.
There's a huge disconnect here. Why do you need to make new feats if the current one already does it. If your interpretation of it is that it doesn't, why would you argue that something doesn't do what someone else, of whom there are many, say it does only to make a new feat that does what all of those other people already say the original feat does.
ex. A child asks their parents if they can have pizza for dinner. The parents say yea, its their Friday night ritual to have a pizza night. The child throws a fit and makes up reasons why they can have pizza.
I agree with you that it could be up for interpretation, as I said earlier, but the way I see it is;
Bold is mine.
The skill gain is an inherent bonus for having a +2 in intelligence. If the stat bonus doesn't apply, then the skill doesn't either.
First paragraph of the magic item creation rules says it all.
In conjunction with Master Craftsman.
Choose one craft or profession skill In which you possess at least 5 ranks.
You must use the chosen skill for the check to make the item.
This entire conversation about master craftsman came up because cirerose thinks creating items is too hard for non casters and the master craftsman feat is too narrow. He then wanted to make new feats to allow non casters to make items too.
RAW already states that the master craftsman feat is broad, not narrow. Why would someone complain it is narrow and then suggest making new feats when the solution already exists.
I don't need a developer to waste their time to interpret this for me. The RAW says exactly what I've been saying, and I'm happy with it. Why do I need to ask permission to do something the book tells me I can do?
The intent of the feat is to allow non casters to make items too. Why would they put unnecessary restrictions on it so people like you could get inflamed and continually make suggestions on how to fix this?
Type Master Craftsman into the search function and read what you find. Don't make assumptions and start more thread propaganda.