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

PaizoCon 2014!

Is crafting magic items too easy, by RAW?


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

301 to 350 of 357 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

Kalshane wrote:
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.

Who was being quoted on that last part?


shallowsoul wrote:
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?

They do for most people. Its called 'rule zero'.

The problem is, of course, that poor rules have a tendency to bread and multiply when no one is looking. Or, maybe its not a problem. It leads to needing a new edition. That keeps game publishers employed.

Silver Crusade

Darkwing Duck wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
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?

They do for most people. Its called 'rule zero'.

The problem is, of course, that poor rules have a tendency to bread and multiply when no one is looking. Or, maybe its not a problem. It leads to needing a new edition. That keeps game publishers employed.

No, Rule 0 is there so you can change a rule you don't agree with. Rule 0 was never implemented as a fix for something that is broken.


shallowsoul wrote:
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?

It works for me today, and it works for me tomorrow, but that doesn't mean they're not poor rules.

Pathfinder is damn near the holy grail of "good rules" in my opinion. It's hard to find a system that's better thought out all around than Pathfinder. Shadowrun 4th ed might give it a run for its money. I'm not going to quit playing Pathfinder because of some poor rules. The thing that bugs me is the poor rules are often a product of the FAQs and Clarifications instead of what's actually written. Like the Flurry/TWF thing .. ugh, what a dumb clarification.

So yeah, I'm not quitting over it, but that doesn't mean I'm going to defend it when someone brings it up. It's a dumb rule.

I think the underlying reason nobody at Paizo wants to fix this, is to really fix it, and to really do it right, you need to scrap the whole "magic item" section of the rulebook and start from scratch. And a lot of that is legacy stuff that's been around since Advanced 1st Edition, that nobody wants to get rid of because of nostalgia. In many ways Paizo is in business because of nostalgia, because we players didn't want to convert to 4th ed and lose all our Druids and Monks and Staves of the Magi.

Silver Crusade

beej67 wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
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?

It works for me today, and it works for me tomorrow, but that doesn't mean they're not poor rules.

Pathfinder is damn near the holy grail of "good rules" in my opinion. It's hard to find a system that's better thought out all around than Pathfinder. Shadowrun 4th ed might give it a run for its money. I'm not going to quit playing Pathfinder because of some poor rules. The thing that bugs me is the poor rules are often a product of the FAQs and Clarifications instead of what's actually written. Like the Flurry/TWF thing .. ugh, what a dumb clarification.

So yeah, I'm not quitting over it, but that doesn't mean I'm going to defend it when someone brings it up. It's a dumb rule.

I think the underlying reason nobody at Paizo wants to fix this, is to really fix it, and to really do it right, you need to scrap the whole "magic item" section of the rulebook and start from scratch. And a lot of that is legacy stuff that's been around since Advanced 1st Edition, that nobody wants to get rid of because of nostalgia. In many ways Paizo is in business because of nostalgia, because we players didn't want to convert to 4th ed and lose all our Druids and Monks and Staves of the Magi.

What bothers me is the whole "Rule 0" thing. I really hate hearing that and I wish some people would actually educate themselves on what it means. Rule 0 is there for "opinionated" rules that you don't like, not rules that are actually broken in one form or another.


shallowsoul wrote:


What bothers me is the whole "Rule 0" thing. I really hate hearing that and I wish some people would actually educate themselves on what it means. Rule 0 is there for "opinionated" rules that you don't like, not rules that are actually broken in one form or another.

Which rules are 'bad' is an opinion.

It may be a justified opinion, but its still an opinion.

Andoran

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

Your position is neither RAW or ROI, as a crafter can set the CL as high as he want. He don't need to be level 20 to make a item at a CL of 20.

The only effect of a high CL is that the base DC is higher, but there is no +5 for missing the CL.


beej67 wrote:


I think the underlying reason nobody at Paizo wants to fix this, is to really fix it, and to really do it right, you need to scrap the whole "magic item" section of the rulebook and start from scratch. And a lot of that is legacy stuff that's been around since Advanced 1st Edition, that nobody wants to get rid of because of nostalgia. In many ways Paizo is in business because of nostalgia, because we players didn't want to convert to 4th ed and lose all our Druids and Monks and Staves of the Magi.

I don't think that's true. The problem isn't magic items. It is acquiring magic items. The rules for acquiring magic items are not part of nostalgia (every edition has had its own rules for acquiring magic items).

Silver Crusade

Darkwing Duck wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:


What bothers me is the whole "Rule 0" thing. I really hate hearing that and I wish some people would actually educate themselves on what it means. Rule 0 is there for "opinionated" rules that you don't like, not rules that are actually broken in one form or another.

Which rules are 'bad' is an opinion.

It may be a justified opinion, but its still an opinion.

I'm not sure if you listening very well.

If a rule such as the magic item rule has flaws in it, which it does, then it is a broken rule and shouldn't be "fixed" by claiming it a "Rule 0" fix.

Rule 0's job isn't to fix broken rules.

I'm not talking about rules that actually work, I am talking about rules that either don't work at all or have something that is broken about them. There is no opinion on a broken rule, it either works or it doesn't. If it doesn't work then it is up to us to notify the designers and hope for a fix.


shallowsoul wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:


What bothers me is the whole "Rule 0" thing. I really hate hearing that and I wish some people would actually educate themselves on what it means. Rule 0 is there for "opinionated" rules that you don't like, not rules that are actually broken in one form or another.

Which rules are 'bad' is an opinion.

It may be a justified opinion, but its still an opinion.

I'm not sure if you listening very well.

If a rule such as the magic item rule has flaws in it, which it does, then it is a broken rule and shouldn't be "fixed" by claiming it a "Rule 0" fix.

Rule 0's job isn't to fix broken rules.

I'm not talking about rules that actually work, I am talking about rules that either don't work at all or have something that is broken about them. There is no opinion on a broken rule, it either works or it doesn't. If it doesn't work then it is up to us to notify the designers and hope for a fix.

I'm not sure if -you- are listening very well.

Which rules "work" or "don't work" is an opinion (even if, in some cases, a justified opinion).


shallowsoul wrote:
Pathfinder is damn near the holy grail of "good rules" in my opinion. What bothers me is the whole "Rule 0" thing. I really hate hearing that and I wish some people would actually educate themselves on what it means. Rule 0 is there for "opinionated" rules that you don't like, not rules that are actually broken in one form or another.

The rules you claim are broken are only broken in your opinion or the opinion of a small group of gamers. This is not the opinion of the game creators.


Khrysaor wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Pathfinder is damn near the holy grail of "good rules" in my opinion. What bothers me is the whole "Rule 0" thing. I really hate hearing that and I wish some people would actually educate themselves on what it means. Rule 0 is there for "opinionated" rules that you don't like, not rules that are actually broken in one form or another.

The rules you claim are broken are only broken in your opinion or the opinion of a small group of gamers. This is not the opinion of the game creators.

That is very much true. However, its also irrelevant IF there are enough people who think that it is a bad rule and the opinion that it is a bad rule sufficiently negatively impacts Paizo's sales.


There can never be rules for magic item creation because of the many varied effects a magic item can have. All you can have are guidelines. Even if all 3rd level spells, as an example, were equal as written that does not mean one spell won't become better than another once it is available for a longer duration or is changed to X/day uses through a magic item.

The campaign itself is also a factor. For Kingmaker which can last decades the feats are very good. For another campaign such as CC they are not so good.

Group playstyle is also a factor.

If you are improving magic items the rules/guidelines are decent. If you are creating brand new items or significantly altering an existing item then you have to be able to decide what a good price should be for that item.

If you as a GM are not able to make that determination then ban the feats until you feel comfortable with it or tell the players they can't have custom items.

PS:This is not directed at anyone, just general thoughts.


Darkwing Duck wrote:
Khrysaor wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Pathfinder is damn near the holy grail of "good rules" in my opinion. What bothers me is the whole "Rule 0" thing. I really hate hearing that and I wish some people would actually educate themselves on what it means. Rule 0 is there for "opinionated" rules that you don't like, not rules that are actually broken in one form or another.

The rules you claim are broken are only broken in your opinion or the opinion of a small group of gamers. This is not the opinion of the game creators.

That is very much true. However, its also irrelevant IF there are enough people who think that it is a bad rule and the opinion that it is a bad rule sufficiently negatively impacts Paizo's sales.

lol


Khrysaor wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
Khrysaor wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Pathfinder is damn near the holy grail of "good rules" in my opinion. What bothers me is the whole "Rule 0" thing. I really hate hearing that and I wish some people would actually educate themselves on what it means. Rule 0 is there for "opinionated" rules that you don't like, not rules that are actually broken in one form or another.

The rules you claim are broken are only broken in your opinion or the opinion of a small group of gamers. This is not the opinion of the game creators.

That is very much true. However, its also irrelevant IF there are enough people who think that it is a bad rule and the opinion that it is a bad rule sufficiently negatively impacts Paizo's sales.
lol

Please acknowledge that WotC did not just become crap overnight. It started with one bad rule and then another.

Silver Crusade

Darkwing Duck wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:


What bothers me is the whole "Rule 0" thing. I really hate hearing that and I wish some people would actually educate themselves on what it means. Rule 0 is there for "opinionated" rules that you don't like, not rules that are actually broken in one form or another.

Which rules are 'bad' is an opinion.

It may be a justified opinion, but its still an opinion.

I'm not sure if you listening very well.

If a rule such as the magic item rule has flaws in it, which it does, then it is a broken rule and shouldn't be "fixed" by claiming it a "Rule 0" fix.

Rule 0's job isn't to fix broken rules.

I'm not talking about rules that actually work, I am talking about rules that either don't work at all or have something that is broken about them. There is no opinion on a broken rule, it either works or it doesn't. If it doesn't work then it is up to us to notify the designers and hope for a fix.

I'm not sure if -you- are listening very well.

Which rules "work" or "don't work" is an opinion (even if, in some cases, a justified opinion).

I really don't think you understand very well.

A rule either works or it doesn't. If a rule works for somethings and doesn't work for others then it's a broken rule. It has nothing to do with opinion. If the math is broken then it's broken, no opinions about it.

Silver Crusade

Khrysaor wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Pathfinder is damn near the holy grail of "good rules" in my opinion. What bothers me is the whole "Rule 0" thing. I really hate hearing that and I wish some people would actually educate themselves on what it means. Rule 0 is there for "opinionated" rules that you don't like, not rules that are actually broken in one form or another.

The rules you claim are broken are only broken in your opinion or the opinion of a small group of gamers. This is not the opinion of the game creators.

The game creators contradict themselves all the time, it's been proven several times on these boards, so I don't know why you are trying to use them as a know all reference.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
Khrysaor wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Pathfinder is damn near the holy grail of "good rules" in my opinion. What bothers me is the whole "Rule 0" thing. I really hate hearing that and I wish some people would actually educate themselves on what it means. Rule 0 is there for "opinionated" rules that you don't like, not rules that are actually broken in one form or another.

The rules you claim are broken are only broken in your opinion or the opinion of a small group of gamers. This is not the opinion of the game creators.

The game creators contradict themselves all the time, it's been proven several times on these boards, so I don't know why you are trying to use them as a know all reference.

They are no more (or less) of a 'know all' reference than you are.

What you've failed to do is prove that any rule is objectively broken. You can't. But, I'd enjoy your futile attempt at trying to do so.


Darkwing Duck wrote:
beej67 wrote:


I think the underlying reason nobody at Paizo wants to fix this, is to really fix it, and to really do it right, you need to scrap the whole "magic item" section of the rulebook and start from scratch. And a lot of that is legacy stuff that's been around since Advanced 1st Edition, that nobody wants to get rid of because of nostalgia. In many ways Paizo is in business because of nostalgia, because we players didn't want to convert to 4th ed and lose all our Druids and Monks and Staves of the Magi.

I don't think that's true. The problem isn't magic items. It is acquiring magic items. The rules for acquiring magic items are not part of nostalgia (every edition has had its own rules for acquiring magic items).

The "items" themselves are largely from the Advanced DND 1st edition DMG, which were carried over into 2nd ed. The crafting process was a new addition in 3rd, and wasn't remotely perfect, but wasn't an amazing problem because you at least had to have the spell necessary to craft the item, and the XP costs tempered the cheese. The main thing that's goofy about PF's approach, is they pulled a few of the managing factors out and the whole thing turned silly for any game world that doesn't strictly adhere to their loot-by-level tables via the Iron Hand of the GM. If 5 guys in a 6 PC group wipe, and the last guy walks with their gear and hocks it, he can suddenly craft things that break games.

wraithstrike wrote:
There can never be rules for magic item creation because of the many varied effects a magic item can have. All you can have are guidelines.

I see where you're going with this and all, but I completely, completely disagree. There may never be a *perfect* magic item creation system, but there can certainly be one as balanced as the spell lists are.

All you really need to do, is take two steps back from a game design standpoint, and assign value to effects, and value to delivery methods, and create a basic system of formulas where you map those effects onto those delivery methods. It's the same sort of math every MMO designer has done since the last century. It's not hugely difficult to build the system, it's just a huge pain to retcon/crowbar it into Pathfinder since they released the core rules without doing it in the first place. SKR said in a thread a while back that the text in the Pathfinder Core Rules wasn't even the final draft, a preliminary draft got stuck in the book by accident. They weren't even supposed to list the item caster level in the entries! lol.

So now they're sorta stuck, since the feature release of their feature product got inked. If they ever fix it at all, it will be with "Pathfinder 2nd Edition" or via a 3rd party supplement they sneak out the back door.

If I was a decade younger and not married with a kid, I might write that supplement. ;)


btw, Shallowsoul, my position is not that the rule is objectively broken, but that the customer base not only doesn't want it, but wants not to have it.


beej67 wrote:

I see where you're going with this and all, but I completely, completely disagree. There may never be a *perfect* magic item creation system, but there can certainly be one as balanced as the spell lists are.

All you really need to do, is take two steps back from a game design standpoint, and assign value to effects, and value to delivery methods, and create a basic system of formulas where you map those effects onto those delivery methods. It's the same sort of math every MMO designer has done since the last century. It's not hugely difficult to build the system, it's just a huge pain to retcon/crowbar it into Pathfinder since they released the core rules without doing it in the first place. SKR said in a thread a while back that the text in the Pathfinder Core Rules wasn't even the final draft, a preliminary draft got stuck in the book by accident. They weren't even supposed to list the item caster level in the entries! lol.

So now they're sorta stuck, since the feature release of their feature product got inked. If they ever fix it at all, it will be with "Pathfinder 2nd Edition" or via a 3rd party supplement they sneak out the back door.

If I was a decade younger and not married with a kid, I might write that supplement. ;)

Since you can make an item that can do anything how do you do that unless you are suggesting limiting what can be made by making a specific list of affects that can be duplicated.

Even then the combination of certain affects might be an issue unless you can think of every possible combination or make the system even more limited.


wraithstrike wrote:
beej67 wrote:

I see where you're going with this and all, but I completely, completely disagree. There may never be a *perfect* magic item creation system, but there can certainly be one as balanced as the spell lists are.

All you really need to do, is take two steps back from a game design standpoint, and assign value to effects, and value to delivery methods, and create a basic system of formulas where you map those effects onto those delivery methods. It's the same sort of math every MMO designer has done since the last century. It's not hugely difficult to build the system, it's just a huge pain to retcon/crowbar it into Pathfinder since they released the core rules without doing it in the first place. SKR said in a thread a while back that the text in the Pathfinder Core Rules wasn't even the final draft, a preliminary draft got stuck in the book by accident. They weren't even supposed to list the item caster level in the entries! lol.

So now they're sorta stuck, since the feature release of their feature product got inked. If they ever fix it at all, it will be with "Pathfinder 2nd Edition" or via a 3rd party supplement they sneak out the back door.

If I was a decade younger and not married with a kid, I might write that supplement. ;)

Since you can make an item that can do anything how do you do that unless you are suggesting limiting what can be made by making a specific list of affects that can be duplicated.

Even then the combination of certain affects might be an issue unless you can think of every possible combination or make the system even more limited.

You could use a system similar to how Champions (from Hero Games) or GURPS works.

But I would start by creating another system first - one that gets rid of the Christmas tree effect in the first place and makes magic items special.


I do agree that magic items have too much influence. If/When the game is redone I would like for the ones that give utility effects to be in the game, while stat booster can be done away with or very limited.

As an example a belt of strength that boosted your strength for the purpose of carrying things, and str checks would be nice, but did not affect your ability to hit things or do damage.


wraithstrike wrote:

I do agree that magic items have too much influence. If/When the game is redone I would like for the ones that give utility effects to be in the game, while stat booster can be done away with or very limited.

As an example a belt of strength that boosted your strength for the purpose of carrying things, and str checks would be nice, but did not affect your ability to hit things or do damage.

as a gm i disagree with this. having access to magic items that can destroy world give me the creativity to make my world how i wish. ive made worlds where no magic exsists, with the exception of spell casters, and ive made ebberon type worlds that have magic powered coffee machines.

as a gm you get to decided what players get, and then you adjust the world according to those changes. balors get less attack less ac etc... now they are inline with what i want the players at level 20 to do. its more work for me, but i get to do what i want as a result.

now if they didnt have +6 to dex stat mods, the game wouldnt be able to be increased easily, to what i the gm want it to be.

i believe in the concept of excessive EVERYTHING then tone it back to where i want it. come to think of it, thats exactly what the PFS did.

now for what the topic asks... yes one check for making a magic item is to easy, it should be a check for every 8 hours of work like in 3.5.


I understand that as a GM, but as someone who has played with several different groups, and GM'd different groups I don't want to learn a lot of different houserules every time I play. That is why I like how much PF is codified. Now if I had the luxury of playing with the same people year in and year out then less codification would be less of an issue.

You did not have to make a check in 3.5. You spend the gold, and the XP. That was it.


shadowsoul wrote:
Who was being quoted on that last part?

The d20prd, as I noted in the quote. AKA, the rules.

Diego Rossi wrote:


Your position is neither RAW or ROI, as a crafter can set the CL as high as he want. He don't need to be level 20 to make a item at a CL of 20.
The only effect of a high CL is that the base DC is higher, but there is no +5 for missing the CL.

I think we were arguing past each other here. I thought you believed I was claiming an item needed to match the caster level listed in the book, which I wasn't. Re-reading the rules, I see that the part about the item needing to have the minimum caster level required to cast the spell is in a different section from the discussion of pre-reqs.

However, I do say +5 to DC per caster level you're short would be a very easy House Rule to implement for folks concerned about 6th level wizards making Luck Blades. I realize that has no effect on RAW, though.


wraithstrike wrote:

Since you can make an item that can do anything how do you do that unless you are suggesting limiting what can be made by making a specific list of affects that can be duplicated.

Even then the combination of certain affects might be an issue unless you can think of every possible combination or make the system even more limited.

PCs should not have rules for making items that can do "anything." They should have rules for making items that do pretty specific things.


The magic item rules are not PC/GM specific. They are just there, and the GM is expected to decide what the PC's can or can not have.

If you are suggesting having different rules for GM's and players that is not much different than what I said upthread. You would just have a line saying "anything not on this list is up to the GM". Basically that is already there though. Any item that is not a standard item is up to the GM.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kalshane wrote:


However, I do say +5 to DC per caster level you're short would be a very easy House Rule to implement for folks concerned about 6th level wizards making Luck Blades. I realize that has no effect on RAW, though.

My house rule is even simpler. I don't allow people to overcast.


Diego Rossi wrote:


My house rule is even simpler. I don't allow people to overcast.

That works, too. I figure you might as well give them a chance at it. Those cursed items have to come from somewhere. :)


The house rule I made for crafting simply requires a source for spells just like requiring the crafting feat for the item. If player somehow happens upon 30 wish scrolls, or however many it would be, or can otherwise convince a level 20 mage to supply wish every day then they can make a wish-powered item. However, they can not simply opt to increase the DC if they lack the spell. They can't make the item, period.


The house rule I'm planning on using for crafting items goes like so:

1. You can't make an item with a higher caster level than your own. No siree.
2. While the "caster level" listed in the item description is usually not considered a prerequisite, you do need to make the item with a high enough caster level to cast any spells listed in the item's prerequisites.

That ought to put a stop to any shenanigans with item creation.

Shadow Lodge Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

Staffan Johansson wrote:

The house rule I'm planning on using for crafting items goes like so:

1. You can't make an item with a higher caster level than your own. No siree.
2. While the "caster level" listed in the item description is usually not considered a prerequisite, you do need to make the item with a high enough caster level to cast any spells listed in the item's prerequisites.

That ought to put a stop to any shenanigans with item creation.

The problem with this is, CL and item power don't always map directly together that well.

Players would have to wait until 11th level to make the cool-but-not-super-powerful CL 11 dust of dryness, which retails for a measly 850 gp.

Just two short levels later, they can craft the late-game-equipment CL 13 helm of brilliance, a 125,000 gp item that gives them access to a big pile of spells.

That just doesn't make sense, and that's not the only example. There are several items in the book priced and written with low-level characters in mind that are suddenly out of bounds until mid-to-high level when they're less effective/important.

It seems to me most of the shenanigans people are complaining about have to do with PCs accessing spells through item crafting that they can't normally cast--so wouldn't you be better off using that as your limiter? If an item casts a spell, make that spell an absolute requirement (ie one you can't bypass by increasing the DC). That way you can't make a luck blade without casting wish, but you can still craft your handy haversack before 9th level (and, it brings the rest of item crafting in line with Craft Wand and Brew Potion, which already have that requirement).

Either that, or increase the difficulty of crafting checks based on the price of the item (since price actually does map directly to item power). The quick and dirty method I've suggested people try in the past is to base the craft DC off the minor-medium-major item tables. The DC to craft minor items is determined as normal, for medium items the DC increases by +5, and major items are DC +10 (or whatever numbers make sense for your game). It aint perfect, but it goes some way toward the desired effect.


Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:

The problem with this is, CL and item power don't always map directly together that well.

Players would have to wait until 11th level to make the cool-but-not-super-powerful CL 11 dust of dryness, which retails for a measly 850 gp.

Just two short levels later, they can craft the late-game-equipment CL 13 helm of brilliance, a 125,000 gp item that gives them access to a big pile of spells.

That just doesn't make sense, and that's not the only example. There are several items in the book priced and written with low-level characters in mind that are suddenly out of bounds until mid-to-high level when they're less effective/important.

It seems to me most of the shenanigans people are complaining about have to do with PCs accessing spells through item crafting that they can't normally cast--so wouldn't you be better off using that as your limiter? If an item casts a spell, make that spell an absolute requirement (ie one you can't bypass by increasing the DC). That way you can't make a luck blade without casting wish, but you can still craft your handy haversack before 9th level (and, it brings the rest of item crafting in line with Craft Wand and Brew Potion, which already have that requirement).

That's what I was getting at with my second requirement. The caster level listed in the item is not a prerequisite in and of itself (with the exception of things like pearl of power or amulet of natural armor. But the caster level needed to cast the prerequisite spells is.

To use the dust of dryness as an example, it has control water as the prerequisite. Control water is a 4th level cleric/druid spell, and a 6th level sorcerer/wizard spell. Since the prerequisite spell could be cast by a 7th level caster, the minimum caster level would be 7. A 5th level caster could not create dust of dryness, but a 7th level caster could, even if he isn't a cleric/druid with access to the control water spell - but then he'd get +5 to the creation DC.

The helm of brilliance on the other hand has prismatic spray, a 7th level sorcerer/wizard spell, as its prerequisite. Therefore, the minimum caster level of the helm is 13th.

Using the actual spell as the can't-avoid prerequisite would work too (it did in 3e, after all), but that would kind of nullify the point of the Master Craftsman feat, and make things like amulets of natural armor and amulets of mighty fists harder to find (druids often have better things to do with their feats than crafting items).

Andoran

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

What Staffan wrote, with a simple difference:
to avoid some shenanigans with spell from classes with less than 9 spell levels, if the spell is available in a list with 9 levels of spells that version of the spell should be used as a reference unless the crafter has access to the modified list and has memorized/know the spell (the summoner spell list is the main culprit, but things like Lesser restoration taken from the paladin list count too).

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Potions are restricted to level 1-3 spells. You can't make a potion of Dimension Door.

You can make a WAND of Dimension door. wands go up to level 4 spells.

BTW all, remember there IS a benefit for increasing the caster level on an item...it resists spells and saves vs destruction.

If there's no cost or very little to setting the CL to 20, then 20 should be the DEFAULT in all circumstances. This would make a rather believable standard that magic items are much harder to dispel/shut down then most cast spells...another reason to wear magic items!

==Aelryinth


I think the summoner has dimension door as a 3rd level spell. The same idea is what helped the archivist in 3.5. He just took certain spells from the adept spell list, IIRC.

Andoran

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

Summoner, third level:
Fire shield
Dimension door
Invisibility grater
Stoneskin

So all the above spells now can be made into a potion as far as RAw is concerned.

Haste and protection from arrows for them are 2nd level spells,

Teleport is a 4th level spell and so the Wand of teleport become a possibility.

The summoner is not the only class that get some spell 1 level earlier, but it get several key spells at levels that make a serious difference.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

oh, ffs. back to spell list games again?

(sighs)

==Aelryinth

Shadow Lodge Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

Staffan Johansson wrote:

That's what I was getting at with my second requirement. The caster level listed in the item is not a prerequisite in and of itself (with the exception of things like pearl of power or amulet of natural armor. But the caster level needed to cast the prerequisite spells is.

To use the dust of dryness as an example, it has control water as the prerequisite. Control water is a 4th level cleric/druid spell, and a 6th level sorcerer/wizard spell. Since the prerequisite spell could be cast by a 7th level caster, the minimum caster level would be 7. A 5th level caster could not create dust of dryness, but a 7th level caster could, even if he isn't a cleric/druid with access to the control water spell - but then he'd get +5 to the creation DC.

The helm of brilliance on the other hand has prismatic spray, a 7th level sorcerer/wizard spell, as its prerequisite. Therefore, the minimum caster level of the helm is 13th.

You get my point about Caster Level though, right? Dust of dryness was just the first item that I saw, so I used it as my example, but there are plenty of others which have a big disconnect between CL and Power Level.

Take the efficient quiver (1,800 gp) and the ring of telekinesis (75,000 gp). Both CL 9, and both craftable at 9th by your system.

Or in the other direction, compare the sword of subtlety and the sword of the planes. Two very similar items (+1 weapons that improve under limited circumstances), which cost the same amount of money (22,000 gp, plus the MW cost of each weapon), yet the CL of one is half the CL of the other (7th vs 15th).

Staffan Johansson wrote:
Using the actual spell as the can't-avoid prerequisite would work too (it did in 3e, after all), but that would kind of nullify the point of the Master Craftsman feat, and make things like amulets of natural armor and amulets of mighty fists harder to find (druids often have better things to do with their feats than crafting items).

I think you misunderstand me. My suggestion is that, for any item that actually casts a spell, have the spell be an absolute prerequisite. For everything else, use the system as normal. So, to go back to the example I just used, the efficient quiver vs. the ring of telekinesis:

The efficient quiver has secret chest as a requirement, but the item itself doesn't actually cast secret chest, it's just a big quiver. So anyone (wizard, cleric, Master Crafter, etc) would be able to craft an efficient quiver, bypassing the prerequisite as normal.

The ring of telekinesis, on the other hand, actually lets you use the spell telekinesis. So you wouldn't be able to bypass the telekinesis prerequisite for that item, and so only sorcerers/wizards would be able to craft such a thing (plus whichever APG classes get that spell).

So Master Craftsmen would still have plenty to do, making +1 swords, bags of holding, amulets of natural armor and what-have-you. Stuff like the helms of brilliance, candles of invocation, and luck blades, however, would be the province of actual spell casters who can cast stuff like prismatic spray, gate, and wish.


Yeah, I don't really have a problem with efficient quiver needing a 9th level crafter to make it. It might not be optimal, but I can live with it.

And the problem comes when deciding what items actually cast spells. In the days of yore (AD&D), the overlap between spell effects and item effects wasn't so big, and even items that did mimic spell effects often did so in a somewhat different manner (e.g. potion of clairvoyance - works as the spell except you can see unknown areas up to 30 yards distant and it lasts for 1 (AD&D-style) turn). Nowadays, some spells are reverse-engineered from various items (e.g glibness).

Should a ring of freedom of movement be classified as casting a spell, or should anyone be able to make one? If the ring gets classified as spellcasting, why wouldn't an amulet of natural armor be as well, seeing as it provides a permanent effect similar to barkskin? Does a pair of winged boots cast fly, or do they just let you fly as per the spell?


Staffan Johansson wrote:

The house rule I'm planning on using for crafting items goes like so:

1. You can't make an item with a higher caster level than your own. No siree.
2. While the "caster level" listed in the item description is usually not considered a prerequisite, you do need to make the item with a high enough caster level to cast any spells listed in the item's prerequisites.

That ought to put a stop to any shenanigans with item creation.

Another problem with that, is how do you determine the caster level. Let's say an item that need Finger of Death. It's a 7th lvl spell for Wizards, 8th level for druids. Dimensional door is 3rd level for Summoners. There are a gazillion examples more.

What do you use? The lowest? What if, suddenly, Paizo release a new class, that has some spell at lower level? The item become easier?


wraithstrike wrote:

The magic item rules are not PC/GM specific. They are just there, and the GM is expected to decide what the PC's can or can not have.

If you are suggesting having different rules for GM's and players that is not much different than what I said upthread. You would just have a line saying "anything not on this list is up to the GM". Basically that is already there though. Any item that is not a standard item is up to the GM.

Huh? Lets pull an example out of a hat. There's already no rule for creating Gloves of Enchanting Everything You Throw At Enemies. If you wanted to introduce Gloves of Enchanting Everything You Throw At Enemies, you would need to introduce the item by GM fiat, and develop your own rules for creating it. You have to do that today, and the rules would have to be completely out of thin air.

I think it would be relatively easy to come up with a better framework for item crafting and item costing that wasn't so silly as the RAW/RAClarified, that would also cover cases such as this.

I think the discussions everyone here is having about how all their different house rules look, and the drawbacks of each other's house rule, pretty well draw a bullseye that the 'fix' isn't going to be easy within the existing framework. I think you have to unravel it a bit and reweave it properly.

Aelryinth wrote:
Potions are restricted to level 1-3 spells. You can't make a potion of Dimension Door.

A 7th level summoner could craft it, according to the current rules, but a 16th level wizard could not. A 13th level wizard could arguably do it by using Limited Wish to emulate a spell from the Summoner list, provided your GM allowed the 3rd level Dim Door to set the ICL instead of the 7th level Limited Wish.


gustavo iglesias wrote:

Another problem with that, is how do you determine the caster level. Let's say an item that need Finger of Death. It's a 7th lvl spell for Wizards, 8th level for druids. Dimensional door is 3rd level for Summoners. There are a gazillion examples more.

What do you use? The lowest? What if, suddenly, Paizo release a new class, that has some spell at lower level? The item become easier?

If a primary caster class (cleric, druid, witch, wizard, and their variants) has the spell , use the lowest among those. If not, use the lowest among the semi-casters (bard, inquisitor, summoner - not sure whether to include the alchemist since they're technically not casters). If none of those have it, resort to the quasi-casters (paladin, ranger).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would suggest, if it is difficulty you want, to not change the rules but instead include specific recipes for each item. Like the PCs have to actually find what it takes to make the item instead of a solid GP value. You can balance this by replacing some of the found loot on the loot table with the recipe items in question. It would take finesse and work but that would solve almost all your problems without having to change the rules.


Staffan Johansson wrote:


If a primary caster class (cleric, druid, witch, wizard, and their variants) has the spell , use the lowest among those. If not, use the lowest among the semi-casters (bard, inquisitor, summoner - not sure whether to include the alchemist since they're technically not casters). If none of those have it, resort to the quasi-casters (paladin, ranger).

hmm, I might be more inclined to go with majority rules. If a spell is Bard 3, Cleric 3, Druid 2, Paladin 3, Ranger 3 (or 2?), Sorc/Wiz 3, Witch 3, that tells ME it's a 3rd level spell that Druids (and Rangers?) get early as a class feature.


Couldn't the gm just roll a die to see what class made the available item for sale?


Personally, I think the idea of a summoner making wands of teleport is really stupid.

To be in the spirit of the rules, I think wands and potions should only have spells the crafting class obtained before level 7.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
cranewings wrote:
Couldn't the gm just roll a die to see what class made the available item for sale?

"Get your Wands of Lesser Restoration at Sir Bob's! Our wands of Lesser Restoration are Paladin-made, and we pass the savings on to you!!! Why pay for cleric-grade casting, when you can get the SAME refreshing, restorative effects for less????"


Chobemaster wrote:
cranewings wrote:
Couldn't the gm just roll a die to see what class made the available item for sale?
"Get your Wands of Lesser Restoration at Sir Bob's! Our wands of Lesser Restoration are Paladin-made, and we pass the savings on to you!!! Why pay for cleric-grade casting, when you can get the SAME refreshing, restorative effects for less????"

Exactly.

301 to 350 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.