Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

RPG Superstar 2015

Is crafting magic items too easy, by RAW?


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

251 to 300 of 357 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

I left Pathfinder a couple of monks ago when SKR made that ludicrous rule that crafting allows a character to ignore WBL. Magic item crafting wouldn't be too easy if this stupid ruling hadn't been made.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 , Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

That rule has applied since 3.5, otherwise Item Crafting makes no sense whatsoever.

The biggest restrictions on item creation are time and gold input. Both of those are very much within the province of control of the DM.

And if Item Creation doesn't work for you, do the Society thing and ban them as being unbalanced and uncontrollable in the environment.

==Aelryinth


Aelryinth wrote:
That rule has applied since 3.5, otherwise Item Crafting makes no sense whatsoever.

Not true. Crafting allows for custom magic items.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 , Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

? What?

That EXACT SAME RULE (crafting effectively increases WBL) has existed since 3.5. Period. SKR was the front man for the explanation both times.

==Aelryinth


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Darkwing Duck wrote:
I left Pathfinder a couple of monks ago when SKR made that ludicrous rule that crafting allows a character to ignore WBL. Magic item crafting wouldn't be too easy if this stupid ruling hadn't been made.

Wealth-by-level has always been a guideline, never a rule. It's been there to give GMs a rough measuring stick as to how much gear characters are likely to have, and how much a character starting at a higher level is supposed to have, but it has never, ever, been intended as a rule saying "5th level characters always have 10,500 gold pieces worth of equipment."


Staffan Johansson wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
I left Pathfinder a couple of monks ago when SKR made that ludicrous rule that crafting allows a character to ignore WBL. Magic item crafting wouldn't be too easy if this stupid ruling hadn't been made.

Wealth-by-level has always been a guideline, never a rule. It's been there to give GMs a rough measuring stick as to how much gear characters are likely to have, and how much a character starting at a higher level is supposed to have, but it has never, ever, been intended as a rule saying "5th level characters always have 10,500 gold pieces worth of equipment."

Yes, WBL has always been a guideline. What that has to do with anything, I have no idea. Unless you think that having more wealth than the guideline for a full level (or more) higher than your current level is still following the guideline. But that's so obviously wrong that I have to assume that's not your point.

I want to play a human. Humans are medium size. A good guideline for medium size is six feet. So, I'll make him 15 feet tall. After all, six feet is just a guideline!


Aelryinth wrote:

? What?

That EXACT SAME RULE (crafting effectively increases WBL) has existed since 3.5. Period. SKR was the front man for the explanation both times.

==Aelryinth

Pathfinder isn't 3.5, but I'd like you to give me an exact quote and page number for that rule in 3.5


Ravingdork wrote:

Isn't James Jacobs in a higher position then Sean and thus his rulings take precedent or at least carry more weight?

In any case, we have at least made it clear that the game developers, as a group, have not made up their minds on the matter.

RD, James does not make the rules. Sean and Jason make the rules. James is basically in charge of Golarion. People often look to Sean and Jason because when they get to decide what official rules are.

That is the reason why people often say James is not the rules guy in rules debate threads while not saying that about Sean, even when they disagree with him.


if you have a wizard artificer (crafter) then the game gets very easy very quickly. this i agree with. but its when the entire party can beat cr APL+5 encounters because of it, that it gets annoying.


Define early what kind of game you want to play. I mean, prior to the first session. Is it low, standard or high fantasy? Let that dictate what you play. If you allow a high fantasy number of items when it's low or standard of course your results are going to be skewed.


wraithstrike wrote:
In 3.5 it was an autopass. There was the XP penalty but it never really stopped anyone that wanted to craft,

In 3.5 you could not build items that you didnt qualify for. It made Sorceerer particularly bad at item creation, they often didn't have the right spells to build items.

In PF not only you can build items you don't have the spell for, but you can even build items your CLASS don't have the spell for. Amulets of Natural Armor are increasingly more common in PF than in 3.5. My sorcerer builds them, and I could never cast barkskin.

That said, I'm perfectly fine with it.


gustavo iglesias wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
In 3.5 it was an autopass. There was the XP penalty but it never really stopped anyone that wanted to craft,

In 3.5 you could not build items that you didnt qualify for. It made Sorceerer particularly bad at item creation, they often didn't have the right spells to build items.

In 3.5 you could also get the help of a fellow spellcaster to make up for the missing spells. So, in a large enough city, it was basically an auto-pass as long as other magic users existed in the setting with some regularity.


Josh M. wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
In 3.5 it was an autopass. There was the XP penalty but it never really stopped anyone that wanted to craft,

In 3.5 you could not build items that you didnt qualify for. It made Sorceerer particularly bad at item creation, they often didn't have the right spells to build items.

In 3.5 you could also get the help of a fellow spellcaster to make up for the missing spells. So, in a large enough city, it was basically an auto-pass as long as other magic users existed in the setting with some regularity.

Which requires you

a) being in a large city
b) that city having such caster (not a lot of druids in cities)
c) being in good terms with said caster
d) the caster not having anything else to do with his time, not asking you a payment for it, or not needing the favor back, which would mean more time spent.

It's hardly an autopass, and it is, by far, much harder than now. I'm a lvl 10 Sorcerer and I can take 10 and craft almost any item in the book, including those that are not from my class. It would be MUCH harder for me to find a Druid in the city than to roll at +5 for barkskin.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Magic item crafting is a very difficult game design problem to solve. Especially if you want to give PCs the option to create unique items. While I would like to see a revamped set of crafting rules for 2.0, I also am worried enough to be careful of what I wish for. The magic item system in 4e is the most broken part of the game. I'd rather stick with what PF has than redo it and end up with a mess like that.


Josh M. wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
In 3.5 it was an autopass. There was the XP penalty but it never really stopped anyone that wanted to craft,

In 3.5 you could not build items that you didnt qualify for. It made Sorceerer particularly bad at item creation, they often didn't have the right spells to build items.

In 3.5 you could also get the help of a fellow spellcaster to make up for the missing spells. So, in a large enough city, it was basically an auto-pass as long as other magic users existed in the setting with some regularity.

Yeah but it meant if you wanted to craft a Ring of Wishes you had to have a friend who knew how to cast Wish.

Contrast that with the PF rules, where some 5th level nitwit can craft a luck blade with 3 wishes in it, even if no mage in the entire game world is high enough level to cast wish - all he needs is the regs.


beej67 wrote:
Josh M. wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
In 3.5 it was an autopass. There was the XP penalty but it never really stopped anyone that wanted to craft,

In 3.5 you could not build items that you didnt qualify for. It made Sorceerer particularly bad at item creation, they often didn't have the right spells to build items.

In 3.5 you could also get the help of a fellow spellcaster to make up for the missing spells. So, in a large enough city, it was basically an auto-pass as long as other magic users existed in the setting with some regularity.

Yeah but it meant if you wanted to craft a Ring of Wishes you had to have a friend who knew how to cast Wish.

Contrast that with the PF rules, where some 5th level nitwit can craft a luck blade with 3 wishes in it, even if no mage in the entire game world is high enough level to cast wish - all he needs is the regs.

Or the mages might not be willing to cooperate: ie, Dark Sun-like campaigns, where mages are legally forbidden.

Also, some types of casters might not be willing to share their knowledge. Secretive Druids for example, might not wish to give Natural Armor Amulets to the knights that are defending the lumberjacks that build a road through the forest.

I like you can ignore the requisites, it makes Item Crafting worthwile for Sorcerer for example. But it needs some extra polishing.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 , Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

Darkwing Duck wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

? What?

That EXACT SAME RULE (crafting effectively increases WBL) has existed since 3.5. Period. SKR was the front man for the explanation both times.

==Aelryinth

Pathfinder isn't 3.5, but I'd like you to give me an exact quote and page number for that rule in 3.5

Are you the one that said SKR 'made up the rule'?

If so, you're wrong. The rule has been there since 3.5...he's carrying the rule over. That's why I said it the way I did. Thank you for acknowledging that you do know that PF is not 3.5, but I must reiterate that the foundation of PF IS 3.5E. You may not realize that.

Go look at the 3.5 errata on crafting feats. It's the exact same argument...he took the feat, he has fewer feats and gave up the xp. He gets more stuff. End of story. Now, it had more teeth in 3.5 because of xp costs, but that was a loophole of its own.

==Aelryinth


Aelryinth wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

? What?

That EXACT SAME RULE (crafting effectively increases WBL) has existed since 3.5. Period. SKR was the front man for the explanation both times.

==Aelryinth

Pathfinder isn't 3.5, but I'd like you to give me an exact quote and page number for that rule in 3.5

Are you the one that said SKR 'made up the rule'?

If so, you're wrong. The rule has been there since 3.5...he's carrying the rule over. That's why I said it the way I did. Thank you for acknowledging that you do know that PF is not 3.5, but I must reiterate that the foundation of PF IS 3.5E. You may not realize that.

Go look at the 3.5 errata on crafting feats. It's the exact same argument...he took the feat, he has fewer feats and gave up the xp. He gets more stuff. End of story. Now, it had more teeth in 3.5 because of xp costs, but that was a loophole of its own.

==Aelryinth

So, you can't give a quote or a page reference. That's exactly what I expected.


gustavo iglesias wrote:
Josh M. wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
In 3.5 it was an autopass. There was the XP penalty but it never really stopped anyone that wanted to craft,

In 3.5 you could not build items that you didnt qualify for. It made Sorceerer particularly bad at item creation, they often didn't have the right spells to build items.

In 3.5 you could also get the help of a fellow spellcaster to make up for the missing spells. So, in a large enough city, it was basically an auto-pass as long as other magic users existed in the setting with some regularity.

Which requires you

a) being in a large city
b) that city having such caster (not a lot of druids in cities)
c) being in good terms with said caster
d) the caster not having anything else to do with his time, not asking you a payment for it, or not needing the favor back, which would mean more time spent.

It's hardly an autopass, and it is, by far, much harder than now. I'm a lvl 10 Sorcerer and I can take 10 and craft almost any item in the book, including those that are not from my class. It would be MUCH harder for me to find a Druid in the city than to roll at +5 for barkskin.

...And in the PHB, in the equipment section, under services, it lists a table of how much it costs to simply hire a spellcaster to cast a spell. You're making a mountain out of a molehill.

OF COURSE there are going to be exceptions, depending on the campaign setting, DM, rules, etc. But assuming a generic baseline, finding another spellcaster to simply cast a spell shouldn't be that big of a deal.

I don't have my books in front of me to quote a page number, but if the tables are in the PHB of all places, then it's not expected to necessarily be all that rare of a service. I haven't looked at my PF core book in a while, so I can't recall if the same tables are there as well.

So, let's review:

a) being in a large city
-Not really. Not after going back and looking at the PHB table.

b) that city having such caster (not a lot of druids in cities)
-So leave the city. "Gather" some "Information" on where a Druid may be.

c) being in good terms with said caster
-Good, but not necessary if simply hiring.

d) the caster not having anything else to do with his time, not asking you a payment for it, or not needing the favor back, which would mean more time spent.
-What is this? You're making up a pretty specific situation beyond the means of simply hiring a npc for a task. I don't even know where this would be a factor except for a Named/Story character there to serve a specific purpose.

If you're just going to make a point of coming up with whatever imaginary reasons to make crafting as hard as possible on yourself, I can't stop you. But if we're going by RAW, then it's not as bad as you think.


gustavo iglesias wrote:
beej67 wrote:
Josh M. wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
In 3.5 it was an autopass. There was the XP penalty but it never really stopped anyone that wanted to craft,

In 3.5 you could not build items that you didnt qualify for. It made Sorceerer particularly bad at item creation, they often didn't have the right spells to build items.

In 3.5 you could also get the help of a fellow spellcaster to make up for the missing spells. So, in a large enough city, it was basically an auto-pass as long as other magic users existed in the setting with some regularity.

Yeah but it meant if you wanted to craft a Ring of Wishes you had to have a friend who knew how to cast Wish.

Contrast that with the PF rules, where some 5th level nitwit can craft a luck blade with 3 wishes in it, even if no mage in the entire game world is high enough level to cast wish - all he needs is the regs.

Or the mages might not be willing to cooperate: ie, Dark Sun-like campaigns, where mages are legally forbidden.

Also, some types of casters might not be willing to share their knowledge. Secretive Druids for example, might not wish to give Natural Armor Amulets to the knights that are defending the lumberjacks that build a road through the forest.

I like you can ignore the requisites, it makes Item Crafting worthwile for Sorcerer for example. But it needs some extra polishing.

Again, these are pretty specific circumstances based on very specific campaign settings. If we're gonna play the "amazing vanishing goalpost" game, then I can turn around and say "Oh yeah? Well in this other game world, the average npc is a 15th level multiclassed spellcaster, capable of casting up to every 3 level spell in the game. So there."

Adapt and adjust when a setting calls for it, but RAW you're just making things harder than they have to be.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Josh M. wrote:

...And in the PHB, in the equipment section, under services, it lists a table of how much it costs to simply hire a spellcaster to cast a spell. You're making a mountain out of a molehill.

OF COURSE there are going to be exceptions, depending on the campaign setting, DM, rules, etc. But assuming a generic baseline, finding another spellcaster to simply cast a spell shouldn't be that big of a deal.

I don't have my books in front of me to quote a page number, but if the tables are in the PHB of all places, then it's not expected to necessarily be all that rare of a service. I haven't looked at my PF core book in a while, so I can't recall if the same tables are there as well.

So, let's review:

a) being in a large city
-Not really. Not after going back and looking at the PHB table.

b) that city having such caster (not a lot of druids in cities)
-So leave the city. "Gather" some "Information" on where a Druid may be.

c) being in good terms with said caster
-Good, but not necessary if simply hiring.

d) the caster not having anything else to do with his time, not asking you a payment for it, or not needing the favor back, which would mean more time spent.
-What is this? You're making up a pretty specific situation beyond the means of simply hiring a npc for a task. I don't even know where this would be a factor except for a Named/Story character there to serve a specific purpose.

If you're just going to make a point of coming up with whatever imaginary reasons to make crafting as hard as possible on yourself, I can't stop you. But if we're going by RAW, then it's not as bad as you think.

I don’t think he was making a mountain out of a molehill, he was just indicating there is more time and work involved when making an item (you don’t have the prerequisites for) in 3.5 compared to PF, which is true.

It is much easier to take a +5 to the DC than have to do any of that. Also, cheaper if you are looking to hire someone.


Josh M. wrote:
Again, these are pretty specific circumstances based on very specific campaign settings. If we're gonna play the "amazing vanishing goalpost" game, then I can turn around and say "Oh yeah? Well in this other game world, the average npc is a 15th level multiclassed spellcaster, capable of casting up to every 3 level spell in the game. So there."

Which is the point. Not every campaign settings have the same, in some of them casters are easier than in others. In most campaigns, cleric spells (and druid spells) aren't just "pay and get it". You can't be an evil summoner, go to the Church of We Are The. Paladins of Goodness and just pay to get your Human Bane Bow. There ARE social interactions in hiring spellcastings. It's not Pizza Hut, that you phone them, ask for a chicken and sausage pizza and they go and deliver.

Just becouse the PHB list the price of a war galleon, it doesn't mean your character can go, ask, and buy The Invincible Armada. Local king might have something to say about it, you know.

Quote:
Adapt and adjust when a setting calls for it, but RAW you're just making things harder than they have to be.

I'm not. I'm just saying that it is SIGNIFICANTLY harder for an Aberrant Sorcerer than get a +5 to the roll, take ten, and autopass the skill to build a Natural Armor Amulet, than go and convince a group of Druids to increase the defenses of an Aberration in human form. By far.

Further: even if I had the option in PF to go and ask for a druid to cast the spell, hiring the spellcasting (paying for it EVERY day needed to build the item), I won't do. Becouse taking 10 with a +5 is way easier, and cheaper, than going to whatever forest they dwell, live there for a week, and pay the casting of Barkskin every day until the amulet is finished.


gustavo iglesias wrote:
Josh M. wrote:
Again, these are pretty specific circumstances based on very specific campaign settings. If we're gonna play the "amazing vanishing goalpost" game, then I can turn around and say "Oh yeah? Well in this other game world, the average npc is a 15th level multiclassed spellcaster, capable of casting up to every 3 level spell in the game. So there."

Which is the point. Not every campaign settings have the same, in some of them casters are easier than in others. In most campaigns, cleric spells (and druid spells) aren't just "pay and get it". You can't be an evil summoner, go to the Church of We Are The. Paladins of Goodness and just pay to get your Human Bane Bow. There ARE social interactions in hiring spellcastings. It's not Pizza Hut, that you phone them, ask for a chicken and sausage pizza and they go and deliver.

Just becouse the PHB list the price of a war galleon, it doesn't mean your character can go, ask, and buy The Invincible Armada. Local king might have something to say about it, you know.

Well, unless your DM says otherwise, yes you can. You can ask all day, it's up to the DM whether the king actually has an issue with it. Again, you're taking an extra step imposing situational circumstances that don't exist RAW.

If you're going that route, why not say that gnomish artificers are having a sale and you can get 3 warships for the price of 1? If you're going to sit there and make up fluff/flavor circumstances on the spot, it can go both ways.

gustavo iglesias wrote:
Josh M. wrote:
Adapt and adjust when a setting calls for it, but RAW you're just making things harder than they have to be.

I'm not. I'm just saying that it is SIGNIFICANTLY harder for an Aberrant Sorcerer than get a +5 to the roll, take ten, and autopass the skill to build a Natural Armor Amulet, than go and convince a group of Druids to increase the defenses of an Aberration in human form. By far.

I'd like to see the number of the page that says you can't do that. I'll wait. Sure, it's going to be impossible for your Sorcerer to do anything if you keep dreaming up impossible circumstances to do so.

gustavo iglesias wrote:
Further: even if I had the option in PF to go and ask for a druid to cast the spell, hiring the spellcasting (paying for it EVERY day needed to build the item), I won't do. Becouse taking 10 with a +5 is way easier, and cheaper, than going to whatever forest they dwell, live there for a week, and pay the casting of Barkskin every day until the amulet is finished.

Have you actually seen the cost of hiring a spellcaster? As long as the spell doesn't have a costly material component, it's almost negligible compared to the cost of the item itself. A small price to pay.

As I mentioned above, I'm talking about 3.5's craft rules and item requirements. If it's just a skill check in PF, then yeah, that's even easier. Stop dreaming up these non-standard situations trying to prop up your point. I'm talking about Rules As Written, and you're just making up stories.


Josh M. wrote:
I'd like to see the number of the page that says you can't do that. I'll wait. Sure, it's going to be impossible for your Sorcerer to do anything if you keep dreaming up impossible circumstances to do so.

It's implied in the game everywhere that druids fight aberrations. The level 1 "detect aberration" spell, for example, works as a hint. The special trait to resist aberrations in some alternative versions is another. Sure, nothing FORBID it, just like nothing forbid a chaotic evil necromancer go to a Iomedae church and pay for a Restoration Spell. It doesn't means it's easy, though. And it is way harder than taking 10 with a skill.

Quote:
As I mentioned above, I'm talking about 3.5's craft rules and item requirements. If it's just a skill check in PF, then yeah, that's even easier. Stop dreaming up these non-standard situations trying to prop up your point. I'm talking about Rules As Written, and you're just making up stories.

You are talking about RAW in a vacuum. I'm talking about a Roleplaying Game. In a vacuum, If I have 500.000 gold pieces I can spend them and just add 20 war galleys to my equipment, instantly, and then go to naval war. In a game, you can't, becouse the shipyard does not have 20 war galleys inside a huge portable hole just waiting you to buy them. In a vacuum, I can just go to a Varisian Town and buy a +1 yeti bane ninjato, just becouse the price is below the city gold value. In a game, your DM might, easily, say you that there aren't ninjato in Ye Old Magic Shop in Varisia, becouse it's not a common weapon there, and of course if there is one, it probably won't be a Yeti Bane.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

"Rules in a vacuum" is a consistent standard by which we can talk about the same rules at great distances, having never set foot in each other's games. You're reaching for all these grand imaginary possibilities, which if I had even the slightest bit of real-world experience with your group I might be able to grasp at. But, since we are strangers on the interwebs, all we have is this "vacuum."

For every possible scenario in which you make things out to be difficult, I can counter with another that would make things incredibly easy. At least in a vacuum, we have consistency.

I'm going to stop now, because we've arrived at the point of dueling imaginary goalposts, and that can go on forever.


Josh M. wrote:

"Rules in a vacuum" is a consistent standard by which we can talk about the same rules at great distances, having never set foot in each other's games. You're reaching for all these grand imaginary possibilities, which if I had even the slightest bit of real-world experience with your group I might be able to grasp at. But, since we are strangers on the interwebs, all we have is this "vacuum."

For every possible scenario in which you make things out to be difficult, I can counter with another that would make things incredibly easy. At least in a vacuum, we have consistency.

I'm going to stop now, because we've arrived at the point of dueling imaginary goalposts, and that can go on forever.

Which is my point from the begining. In some campaings, in some situations, you can hire a spellcaster easily. In those cases, the 3.5 rule is slightly more restrictive than the PF rule (which is take 10 and get over it). However, in some other campaigns (or some other situations, given the same campaign), it might be next to impossible to get a spellcaster to cast such spell. Just becouse something has a price listed in the PHB, it does not mean you can autobuy it. You can't buy a War Galley in Mongolia, period. It does not matter if it has price listed, or if the Capitol of Mongolia happen to have enough City Base Value. It does not have shipyards, so it does not sell ships. Whatever gold you have, and the fact the ship has a price listed, is not relevant.

Same goes with spellcasters. Just becouse you are in the Valleys and you want to build a Luck Sword, it does not mean you can go to Elminster, pay for 3 wishes, and build your sword. Whatever gold you have. Elminster is not a machine cash dispenser, he is a NPC, has personality, and might have things to do that are more interesting for him that casting a few spells for a guy he has never met before. Sure, for *Some^ spells (specially low level ones), it's a given convention that you can find some wizard that has short income and sell his services. But more specialized spells (such as "druid only" or "bard only") might be harder to get. High level spells are harder to get too, becouse high level casters might not be interested in doing bussiness with you. Same goes with non-casters. Just becouse hiring a soldier has a given price, it does not mean you can go to a specific NPC and hire him, even if he has a different goal.

Houses have a listed price too. That does not mean you can go to the local farmer , give him the coins, and tell him "I buy your house, get your ass out of here, it's my property". He might not be interested in selling his house. Even if it has a listed price.

So yes, you can counter with some other scenarios. And that would make the difficulty to build a item that you don´t have a spell from "slightly harder in 3.5" (becouse you have to pay), to "incredibly harder in 3.5" (becouse you might not find the shipyard you need in Mongolia). In Pathfinder, it is a flat "I take 10, autopass the skill", whatever the scenario is. That's why, on average, it's much easier in PF than in 3.5.


Have they said flat-out that lacking caster level is a flat +5, regardless of how many levels you're short?

IMO, it should be +5 per level the caster needs to make the item beyond his own level.

So that Ring of Three Wishes (or Luck Blade) requires a minimum caster level of 17 for 9th level spells. If Mr. 5th level caster wants to try and create it, that's +60 to his DC for levels and another +5 for not knowing how to cast Wish. Good luck with that.


Darkwing Duck wrote:
Yes, WBL has always been a guideline. What that has to do with anything, I have no idea. Unless you think that having more wealth than the guideline for a full level (or more) higher than your current level is still following the guideline. But that's so obviously wrong that I have to assume that's not your point.

It's a guideline in the same way that "encounters should have an encounter level no more than 4 higher than the party's average level" is a guideline. In my campaign, if the 3rd level party decides to go raid a the lair of a dragon that terrorizes kingdoms, I'm not going to say that the dragon is only CR 7. Nope, that dragon's likely going to have a CR in the high teens, because he's the dragon that terrorizes kingdoms.

Similarly, if a character takes an item creation feat, he's going to have better gear. He's taking the item creation feat instead of something like Spell Focus, after all. I'll grant you that this was more of a trade-off in 3e where magic items cost XP, but it's still a trade-off.

Quote:
I want to play a human. Humans are medium size. A good guideline for medium size is six feet. So, I'll make him 15 feet tall. After all, six feet is just a guideline!

Closer to "I want to play an elf. Most elves live in the forest. But I want my elf to come from a city!"

Darkwing Duck wrote:
Pathfinder isn't 3.5, but I'd like you to give me an exact quote and page number for that rule in 3.5

DMG 3.5, page 199: "A spellcaster created at a higher level than 1st can use any of the XP and gp you have awarded to make magic items, provided that she has the proper item feats and prerequisites." It's pretty clear that that sentence allows you to take gold + XP + prerequisites and turn them into an item worth more gold.

And that's even for starting characters! There's nothing at all limiting the treasure given out by a DM, or that a character earns on his own. I'd say that the treasure tables are closer to being actual rules than the wealth-by-level guidelines, and those are extremely random. I mean, sure, an average level 6 encounter will provide 2,000 gp worth of treasure, but once you start rolling on the tables you could get anything from nothing at all, to 120 pp plus 4 art object worth 12,000 gp each plus a tome of understanding +1 worth 27,500 gp, all in all worth 76,700 gp. Would this hoard be "illegal" in 3.5e? No, it could theoretically be honestly rolled using the random treasure tables (note: Pathfinder doesn't use random treasure tables, possibly for precisely this reason).

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kalshane wrote:

Have they said flat-out that lacking caster level is a flat +5, regardless of how many levels you're short?

IMO, it should be +5 per level the caster needs to make the item beyond his own level.

So that Ring of Three Wishes (or Luck Blade) requires a minimum caster level of 17 for 9th level spells. If Mr. 5th level caster wants to try and create it, that's +60 to his DC for levels and another +5 for not knowing how to cast Wish. Good luck with that.

The caster level is not a prerequisite at all (with the exception of needing if for the +x part of a weapon or armor), so you don't need to met it.

/me cast: Wall of citations.

"Sean K Reynolds" Dec, 1 2009 wrote:

{Any sense for if/when an official errata might be produced?}

I've mentioned it to Jason as of now.

{In this case, I can see level now being a prereq since you can bypass prereqs by adding +5 to the craft DC, but I have no idea if that is really intended.}

Like I said, Caster Level is not a prereq for creating an item unless it's actually listed in the Requirements line. For example, there's no reason why a 1st-level pearl of power requires a 17th-level caster (and the Requirements line only specifies that you have to be able to cast the spell level in question).

{Another recent example is has positive energy changed in how it affects incorporeal undead? The PF rules indicate it may have, although almost everyone who voiced an opinion thought the PF rules were unintentionally changed. That's a tough argument to pitch to a DM though. But the rules are wrong!}

Has Jason weighed in on a thread about this? Can you provide me a link to a thread where people are asking this question so I can point him at it?

FAQ Aug 18. 2010 wrote:

Pearl of Power: What is the caster level required to create this item?

Though the listed Caster Level for a pearl of power is 17th, that caster level is not part of the Requirements listing for that item. Therefore, the only caster level requirement for a pearl of power is the character has to be able to cast spells of the desired level.

However, it makes sense that the minimum caster level of the pearl is the minimum caster level necessary to cast spells of that level--it would be strange for a 2nd-level pearl to be CL 1st.

For example, a 3rd-level wizard with Craft Wondrous Item can create a 1st-level pearl, with a minimum caster level of 1. He can set the caster level to whatever he wants (assuming he can meet the crafting DC), though the pearl's caster level has no effect on its powers (other than its ability to resist dispel magic). If he wants to make a 2nd-level pearl, the caster level has to be at least 3, as wizards can't cast 2nd-level spells until they reach character level 3. He can even try to make a 3rd-level pearl, though the minimum caster level is 5, and he adds +5 to the DC because he doesn't meet the "able to cast 3rd-level spells" requirement.

—Sean K Reynolds, 08/18/10

[
"Sean K Reynolds" Sep 23, 2010 wrote:

For many items, the CL provides no benefit except resistance to dispel attempts. A [i]bag of holding is an example of this... its powers aren't based on CL. Thus, the wiz17 could make his bag at CL 9th (the default), CL17th (his own CL), or anything in between. I probably wouldn't let him make it at CL 1st, as secret chest requires CL 9th and the item is based on that, but if he really wanted to I supposed I'd let him. None of these choices affect the price, cost, time, or craft DC in any way, because the CL doesn't affect the item's abilities.

For other items, the CL does actually play a role in the item's effects--a generic necklace of fireballs has a default CL of 10th because two varieties include fireball-beads that deal 10d6 damage (just like a CL 10th fireball does). If you wanted to make a type VI or VII necklace (which have fireballs of this power), you should *require* the crafter set the CL to 10th. However, if you're just making a type I necklace (max 5d6 fireball), there's no reason you couldn't just set the item's CL to 5th because it doesn't need to be more than that. And if you're a wiz20 and wanted to be a weirdo and make a type I necklace that's CL 20th, you could, but unless you're paying the extra gold for this increase to change the d6s of the item, that CL is basically irrelevant and I wouldn't have it effect the crafting DC.

For the pearl of power, I agree that in an ideal situation, each type of pearl would have its own CL listed (based on the min level to actually cast that sort of spell), and likewise each type of necklace of fireballs would have its own CL. And while the pearl sort of straddles the line between category 1 (CL is irrelevant because a CL 20th 1st-level pearl isn't any better at recalling spells than a CL 1st 1st-level pearl) and category 2 (in that the spell level of the pearl implies a minimum CL), in terms of its cost, price, and time, the CL difference for a pearl of the same spell level is essentially irrelevant and would almost never be a factor in any campaign (only if someone is specifically trying to temporarily nullify the powers of a pearl, which I've *never* seen happen). It shouldn't be harder to craft the "better" high-CL 1st-level pearl because it isn't really any better than the low-CL 1st-level pearl.

So if the question is, "should a CL 17th 1st-level pearl have a higher crafting DC than a CL 1st 1st-level pearl?" then the answer is "no, because the difference between the two is essentially negligible." Both cost 1000gp, both recall a 1st-level spell. Likewise with a bag of holding... the CL doesn't affect its abilities, so a wiz17 could set the CL to 17th if he wanted to, without changing the crafting DC at all.

Asking the same question about something where the CL *does* matter (like a wand of fireball), I would make the crafting check higher, because that CL actually reflects a significant change in the item's power. A wiz5 trying to make a CL 10th wand of fireball doesn't have the prerequisite to cast a 10d6 fireball, so him trying to make a wand of that should be harder than making a 5d6 wand... and this is reflected in the cost of the item (a 10d6 wand costs more than a 5d6 wand). It *should* be harder for that wizard to make the better wand because the wand really is better than the other wand.

TLDR:
1 )If giving the item a better CL doesn't really make the item better, don't make it harder for the crafter (by increasing the crafting DC) for that increase in CL, any more than you'd make it harder if they want a blue magical cloak instead of a red magical cloak.
2) If giving the item a better CL doesn't really make the item better, let the crafter create it at their own CL instead of the default.


Staffan Johansson wrote:


Closer to "I want to play an elf. Most elves live in the forest. But I want my elf to come from a city!"

No. 'Live in the forest' isn't a quantitative guideline. WBL is. So, using a quantitative guideline, its like saying elves are 6 feet tall by guideline, so, mine will be twelve feet tall (200% taller).

Quote:


DMG 3.5, page 199: "A spellcaster created at a higher level than 1st can use any of the XP and gp you have awarded to make magic items, provided that she has the proper item feats and prerequisites." It's pretty clear that that sentence allows you to take gold + XP + prerequisites and turn them into an item worth more gold.

And that's even for starting characters! There's nothing at all limiting the treasure given out by a DM, or that a character earns on his own. I'd say that the treasure tables are closer to being actual rules than the...

No, its not 'pretty clear'. I don't know why but people keep confusing 'wealth' with 'cost of production'. What the spellcaster IS allowed to do with his feat is make custom magic items. He can, for example, make a staff that does x,y, and q instead of the one that's published in the book that does x, y, and z. (as long as it doesn't put him above his WBL). Violating WBL is not RAW.

I want spellcasters to get something for their feat. But SKR's interpretation of 'something' makes crafting far FAR, FAR, FAR, FAR more powerful than any other feat in the rules. Consider, skill focus grants +6 skill points after 10th level. A magic item which grants +6 skill points costs 7200gp (to keep it slotless). So, at 10th level, the item creation feat is worth more than 8 skill focus feats. Whereas someone else can take the skill focus feat, the wizard can take the crafting feat and not only give himself the effect of skill focus, but can give everyone else in his party (and maybe even their leadership cohorts and favorite barmaid) the effect of skill focus.


Diego Rossi wrote:


The caster level is not a prerequisite at all (with the exception of needing if for the +x part of a weapon or armor), so you don't need to met it.

I wasn't talking about the item's caster level as per the CRB. I know that's simply for "generic items" that the PCs found.

However, an item needs to have a caster level high enough to cast any spells you place into it. From the SKR example you quoted, a Necklace of Missiles that uses a 5d6 fireball requires a Caster Level of 5.

A Wish is a 9th level spell. Minimum caster level for casting 9th level spells in 17th level. By the rules, it is impossible to create an item that casts Wish with a lower caster level than 17th.

If a 5th level character tried to create a Luck Blade, it makes more sense to me that it should be much harder for him than for a 12th level caster. Which is why I was asking if we've been told if the +5 DC for having too low of a caster level is a flat +5 or a +5 per level.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

If you read the whole wall of citations and the relevant rules you will see that:

1) the CL is nor part of the item requirements. from the PRD: "Requirements: Certain requirements must be met in order for a character to create a magic item. These include feats, spells, and miscellaneous requirements such as level, alignment, and race or kind. The prerequisites for creation of an item are given immediately following the item's caster level.", so you don't need to increase the DC for missing the indicated CL.

2) That you can set any CL you want for the item, from the minimum Cl needed to cast the relevant spell to whatever CL you want

3) That increasing the CL of a item by 1 point increase the DC of making the item as the DC is item CL+5

The problem is that it very easy to increase you total skill.
Making a luck blade CL 17 DC 22+5 for missing the wish spell.
5th level wizard - 20 intelligence - +2 intelligence headband - 5 skills in spellcraft - skill focus spellcraft.
he has 5 ranks +3 class skill +6 intelligence + 3 skill focus = +17
Taking 10 he will be automatically successful at making the wish part of the luck blade.
"Funnily" he will be incapable to make one as he don't met the special requirement of having x3 the enhancement bonus of the blade. For that he need to be 6th level. on the other hand, if he had around one and a half millions of gp available he could craft a wondrous item that will cast 5 wish every day.
A wizard with craft jewellery, the appropriate skill focus and masterwork tools could make a wish granting gem at level 4 without the headband.

So the only difference between a level 5 caster making a wish granting item and a level 12 wizard is that the level 12 character can regularly take a +5 to his DC and craft at double speed.

If you want to reproduce an item that exist, keeping the listed CL you only need to get your skill level within CL-5 and the success is automatic. You only need to take 10.

Silver Crusade

The designers need to either A: Remove item creation feats from the player's section of the book and put them in the DM's section as optional or B: Put a small clause on the bottom of each feat that says "Only with DM permission".

Liberty's Edge

Aye. Just this last seesion I about blew my stack when one of the players spent some gold and his party wizard crafted Boots of Speed-Strinding and Springing-Elvenkind. Not only do these broken rules allow min-maxing, they go and allow you to ignore body-slot requiremnts simpley by tripling (or more) powers for one item.

"Oh you can just deliberatly have them get stolen, step in green slime, etc, because he put all his eggs in one basket'. Yeah. That's fair....

RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32 , Star Voter 2013

I miss the good old days when creating a magic item involved months of trekking back and forth across the game world finding all sorts of bizarre and unique ingredients ...


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Thraxus wrote:


The Craft feats, as they currently work, simply double Wealth By Level. Increasing the Craft DC to a base 10, slows down the players some and helps keep WBL relevant.

How? They make an item worth $2,000 it costs them $1,000 in materials if successful and then they can sell the item at half it's value of $2,000 which is that original $1,000...

Karkon wrote:


I suppose the ideal system for me would make all magic items cost xp, let wizards have all the feats for free, and require getting special items for each item. I would let scrolls stand as is.

Which means the wizard takes the -XP hit on creation and has no means of getting the XP back through normal means (Pathfinder doesn't let you catch up XP like 3.5).

Any crafting requires GM approval, simple!

In a campaign I am playing now we simply don't find party specific items, it's a matter of balance, we sell what we don't need and use the funds to create the ones that we do (with GM approval). It's a no brainer - the players don't get to dictate what items are created to the GM it's worked out between us. The rules as they stand are fine.

LilithsThrall wrote:


I'm not telling you what house rules you can use. It's your game. Play how you want to. I'm only telling you what WBL is.

Uh.. So what is the WBL for a character mid level? Since experience is gained over time, one can assume that gold is also gained over time. That means according to RAW some characters mid-level (i.e. all those that don't hit the XP total each and every level are going to be ahead or behind the WBL).

Think about your age? How old are you between each birthday?

The GM needs to approve any item built, he/she runs the game. not the players.

Shadow Lodge Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Achilles wrote:

Aye. Just this last seesion I about blew my stack when one of the players spent some gold and his party wizard crafted Boots of Speed-Strinding and Springing-Elvenkind. Not only do these broken rules allow min-maxing, they go and allow you to ignore body-slot requiremnts simpley by tripling (or more) powers for one item.

"Oh you can just deliberatly have them get stolen, step in green slime, etc, because he put all his eggs in one basket'. Yeah. That's fair....

Remember, the magic item pricing guidelines are meant for pricing new magic items (as in ones you've written), not giving your players carte blanche to futz with existing items. PCs wanting to invent these "Boots of Speed-Strinding and Springing-Elvenkind" need GM permission to do so, just like they'd need GM permission if they wanted to research the spell "Heal-Heroism-Haste".


lastblacknight wrote:
Thraxus wrote:


The Craft feats, as they currently work, simply double Wealth By Level. Increasing the Craft DC to a base 10, slows down the players some and helps keep WBL relevant.

How? They make an item worth $2,000 it costs them $1,000 in materials if successful and then they can sell the item at half it's value of $2,000 which is that original $1,000...

becouse when you get that shiny 2000 gp diamond in the dragon cave, you can do 2 things: buy a 2000 gp item, or build TWO 2000 gp items.

Karkon wrote:
Quote:


I suppose the ideal system for me would make all magic items cost xp, let wizards have all the feats for free, and require getting special items for each item. I would let scrolls stand as is.

Which means the wizard takes the -XP hit on creation and has no means of getting the XP back through normal means (Pathfinder doesn't let you catch up XP like 3.5).

Except in PF you don't pay XP to craft...


Kalshane wrote:
If a 5th level character tried to create a Luck Blade, it makes more sense to me that it should be much harder for him than for a 12th level caster. Which is why I was asking if we've been told if the +5 DC for having too low of a caster level is a flat +5 or a +5 per level.

By RAW, it's a flat +5. Which is really silly.

I actually like your idea of making it +5 per level as a house rule fix though.

Liberty's Edge

Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:

Remember, the magic item pricing guidelines are meant for pricing new magic items (as in ones you've written), not giving your players carte blanche to futz with existing items. PCs wanting to invent these "Boots of Speed-Strinding and Springing-Elvenkind" need GM permission to do so, just like they'd need GM permission if they wanted to research the spell "Heal-Heroism-Haste".

RAW disagree. For example adding invisibility to a +2 Ring of protection:

Here's the quote:

Adding New Abilities
Sometimes, lack of funds or time make it impossible for a magic item crafter to create the desired item from scratch. Fortunately, it is possible to enhance or build upon an existing magic item. Only time, gold, and the various prerequisites required of the new ability to be added to the magic item restrict the type of additional powers one can place.

The cost to add additional abilities to an item is the same as if the item was not magical, less the value of the original item. Thus, a +1 longsword can be made into a +2 vorpal longsword, with the cost to create it being equal to that of a +2 vorpal sword minus the cost of a +1 longsword.

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%. For example, if a character adds the power to confer invisibility to her ring of protection +2, the cost of adding this ability is the same as for creating a ring of invisibility multiplied by 1.5.

I was using the argument that doing such would make the items almsot minor artifacts, but one player used a Rod of Lordly Might as an example. Another being Boots of the Winterlands or even any of the various staffs that can do multiple non-related things.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
beej67 wrote:
Kalshane wrote:
If a 5th level character tried to create a Luck Blade, it makes more sense to me that it should be much harder for him than for a 12th level caster. Which is why I was asking if we've been told if the +5 DC for having too low of a caster level is a flat +5 or a +5 per level.

By RAW, it's a flat +5. Which is really silly.

I actually like your idea of making it +5 per level as a house rule fix though.

Actually, beej67, as I pointed out above your post, it is a +5 because he lack the wish spell, but lacking the caster level don't make any difference in the Dc, the CL is not a prerequisite, so lacking the CL don't increase the DC of an item at all.

Achilles wrote:
Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:

Remember, the magic item pricing guidelines are meant for pricing new magic items (as in ones you've written), not giving your players carte blanche to futz with existing items. PCs wanting to invent these "Boots of Speed-Strinding and Springing-Elvenkind" need GM permission to do so, just like they'd need GM permission if they wanted to research the spell "Heal-Heroism-Haste".

RAW disagree. For example adding invisibility to a +2 Ring of protection:

Still GM territory. Any non standard item is GM territory, even when it is the combination of 2 existing items.


i just found out today, that you only need to make a check one time. man in 3.5 you had to make one every day if i remember correctly. this IS much easier.


DR is correct. The GM has to approve the price, and the item itself. What the players wants to price as 4000 gp the GM may consider to be an artifact.

There are magic item creation guidelines not rules when it comes to making up nonstandard items.

Quote:
Many factors must be considered when determining the price of new magic items. The easiest way to come up with a price is to compare the new item to an item that is already priced, using that price as a guide. Otherwise, use the guidelines summarized on Table: Estimating Magic Item Gold Piece Values.

Guess who gets to decide what the final price is since the chart is only a guide, and not a rule or even if the item is allowed at all?

The book does not even follow the guidelines for certain items.

IIRC the ring of invisibility is off if you use the book's formula, but that is not the only one.


Diego Rossi wrote:
Actually, beej67, as I pointed out above your post, it is a +5 because he lack the wish spell, but lacking the caster level don't make any difference in the Dc, the CL is not a prerequisite, so lacking the CL don't increase the DC of an item at all.

Ugh. You're right of course. What a mess.

Quote:
Still GM territory. Any non standard item is GM territory, even when it is the combination of 2 existing items.

Technically *any* rule is GM territory. "GMs can always throw it out" is a very poor defense for a bad rule. Not that you're defending it.

Quote:
IIRC the ring of invisibility is off if you use the book's formula, but that is not the only one.

It makes my skin crawl how many errors and inconsistencies there are with the magic item value system and crafting system in Pathfinder. I realize most of that is legacy from previous editions, but it sure would be nice if they wiped the slate clean and developed a new, sensible item crafting system for Pathfinder 2.0.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

No, I am not defending it, I am simply saying that the players should not think that the combination of two (or more) existing magic items is automatically permitted, while they are authorized to suppose that any printed magic items, unless the GM expressly disallow it, exist somewhere in the game universe and can conceivably be crafted.

The GM can still say that something don't exist, even if it is printed by Paizo (I have removed the Goggles of the sniper as soon as I realized how they will interact with the sniping rules and perception distance modifiers), but that normally will be an exception.

Even something as simple as changing the item slot used should be approved by the GM.

I must admit that I dislike the Summoner spell list. Too many key spell had their spell level reduced, often to a level that allow changes in what can be produced with them (dimension door potions, as an example).

I have sent my players a page of houserules regarding magic items. Some make easier/less costly to make them (potions of spells like haste that normally affects multiple targets cost less as the potion will affect only the imbiber) other make increase the cost/difficulty of making magic items (all the personal range spell cost more when making a magic item based on them) but even then we are speaking of guidelines, always subject to the GM veto or rebalancing of the item.


Quote:
dimension door potions

Wow, I hadn't even considered that. Haha, that's a sweet idea.

Before I started houseruling everything item by item I'd just scrap the thing and rebuild it from scratch myself so that it works. I may still do that one day.

Marathon Voter 2013

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Or, you know, just stop freaking out about it. That saves you a lot of work.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

They are general rules:
- multy target spell made into single target potion cost less
- all personal spell cost as they if theyr spell level was higher by one when made into items usable by anyone without UMD

This kind of things, the kind of stuff what would be needed for craft magic items 2.0. The problem is that there is a large number of spells and a large number of interactions between them. What can be balanced when it is a spell burning a valuable resource 8a spell slot) can become overpowered when made into a magic item, especially one used by anyone.

Take the idea of the wishing gem. For a single player making one, with several years of crafting and a cost of 1.6 millions gp, isn't so interesting. For a kingdom that could conceivably use it for centuries?
**BEST DEAL**

So rules that are reasonable for a generic spell, can become broken when applied to a specific spell. Unless you use some complicate system with loads of cheeks and balances, like GURPS, approving magic items will always be GM territory.

Cheapy wrote:
Or, you know, just stop freaking out about it. That saves you a lot of work.

And drop a discussion? Hmm, that is a novel idea. ;-)


Diego Rossi wrote:

Actually, beej67, as I pointed out above your post, it is a +5 because he lack the wish spell, but lacking the caster level don't make any difference in the Dc, the CL is not a prerequisite, so lacking the CL don't increase the DC of an item at all.

The caster level listed in the item is description is not a requirement on it's own, no. However, an item must have a caster level high enough to cast any spells placed into it.

d20PRD wrote:
While item creation costs are handled in detail below, note that normally the two primary factors are the caster level of the creator and the level of the spell or spells put into the item. A creator can create an item at a lower caster level than her own, but never lower than the minimum level needed to cast the needed spell.

If your caster level is lower than required by the item to cast spells placed in it, like Wish that counts as not meeting a requirement in my book.

Silver Crusade

Cheapy wrote:
Or, you know, just stop freaking out about it. That saves you a lot of work.

So ignore poor rules and hope they go away works for you?

251 to 300 of 357 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / Is crafting magic items too easy, by RAW? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.