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!

Magic Item Crafting: any unresolved questions?


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

201 to 250 of 759 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

So the amount you need to spend is half that base price plus the cost of any expensive components for 50 castings but any component cost doesn't increase the craft time.


Pathfinder Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

This brings up something that's always bothered me. The disparity between wands with regards to wand costs.

If a spell is a 1st level spell for say, Rangers, and a 2nd level spell for say, Clerics, and a third level spell for say, Wizards/Sorcerers, then the wands are costed for Clerics & Wizards/Sorcerers. The question becomes, why would anyone pay more for the wand made by a Wizard/Sorcerer? It seems the market price for a wand of X should be based off the best combination of level/commonality, so the aforementioned wand should have a market value based off the cleric, given that there's a LOT more clerics that make wands than rangers that make wands. This means Rangers would make more off their wands (given they can sell it for the value of a 2nd level spell instead of a 1st level spell wand) and wizards/sorcerers would make less off the wand (given they can only sell it as a 2nd level spell wand, meaning they might not even break even on the sale).

What it all comes down to is, it seems to me that each spell should have a 'base level' that indicates what level wand it represents. This would end the whole thing and simplify things.

Taldor RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

Neo2151 wrote:
Craft Wand wrote:
Benefit: You can create a wand of any 4th-level or lower spell that you know. Crafting a wand takes 1 day for each 1,000 gp in its base price. To craft a wand, you must use up raw materials costing half of this base price. A newly created wand has 50 charges.
Emphasis mine. "Base" is the keyword. As Stoneskin is a 4th level spell, the base cost of a wand of Stoneskin is 21,000gp (or 24,000gp if a Sorcerer crafts it). The cost of the expensive material components is just extra expense.

I hadn't noticed that before. I see it now. I had always equated base price with market price. It would be nice if items with expensive components would list the difference then. It can be figured out.

math hidden to protect the innocent:

market price (m) = base price (b) + component cost (c)
cost (o) = 1/2b + c
m-o = 1/2 b
b=2(m-o)

so the base price is always twice the difference between the market price and the cost.

For example, a three wish luck blade would have a base price of 2(142960-109135) = 67650gp and take 68 days to make (not 143).


I've been awake for far too long to make sense of your math, so let's go back to that wand of Stoneskin and break it down as if created by a Wizard:

Stoneskin is a 4th level spell and the base price for a wand that holds a 4th level wizard spell is 21,000gp. (The base price assumes the minimum caster level required to create the item, and will be different depending on what sort of item you wish to create. For example, a wand's base price is "spell level x caster level x 750gp," while a weapon's base price would be "bonus x bonus x 2000gp.")
Stoneskin has an expensive material cost of 250gp worth of granite and diamond dust per cast. A wand requires enough components for 50 castings, so: 250gp x50 = 12500gp.
To create a magic item, you pay material costs equal to half the base price of the item, plus any additional costs based on expensive material components: 21000/2= 10500gp. 10500+12500=23000gp.
The time required to craft a magical item is 1 day (8 hours of work) for every 1000gp in it's base cost.

So to create the wand of Stoneskin the wizard would need to pay material expenses equal to 23,000gp and it would take you 21 days of crafting time.


As far as Specific Magic Weapons/Shields/Armor goes, I have no idea how to make those. The rules are silent as the grave.

Meaning that, for your Luck Blade example, I have no idea how they priced the addition of wishes or the +1 Luck bonus. I can tell you what you need to make a Luck Blade, but I can't tell you how you did it.
(There's an unresolved question if ever there was one!)


LazarX wrote:
Buri wrote:
Restricting an item to a single class is actually a 30% discount.

Not if it's an item that could normally only be used by said class.

In my games. restrictions ADD cost, not substract it. The only time I ever allow a restriction to deduct cost is when it restricts the PLAYER.

That is interesting for a house rule LazarX, but the official rules are quite clear that it grants a 30% discount.

"Item Requires Specific Class or Alignment to Use: Even more restrictive than requiring a skill, this limitation cuts the price by 30%."

I'll be honest I hate that rule, it allows players to metagame and discount all their items if you follow it RAW.


Gauss wrote:
magnuskn wrote:

Probably already asked, but I am in kind of a hurry this evening:

- Can a wielder of a Ring of Sustenance get a second 8-hour period ( or fraction thereof ) into his workday to circumvent the quartering his output would suffer during an adventuring day?

I think your question is actually two.

First: Can you increase the amount of time you are crafting past 8 hours a day if you are not required to sleep as much (from an item such as a Ring of Sustenance)?

CRB p549 wrote:
The caster can work for up to 8 hours each day. He cannot rush the process by working longer each day, but the days need not be consecutive, and the caster can use the rest of his time as he sees fit.

Thus, no he cannot get a second 8hour period.

Second: If you are adventuring is the extra time provided by a Ring of Sustenance also half effective? (Note: It is not 1/4, it is 1/2.)

CRB p549 wrote:
If the caster is out adventuring, he can devote 4 hours each day to item creation, although he nets only 2 hours’ worth of work. This time is not spent in one continuous period, but rather during lunch, morning preparation, and during watches at night.
CRB p549 wrote:
If time is dedicated to creation, it must be spent in uninterrupted 4-hour blocks. This work is generally done in a controlled environment, where distractions are at a minimum, such as a laboratory or shrine. Work that is performed in a distracting or dangerous environment nets only half the amount of progress ( just as with the adventuring caster).

My personal take: The second quote is not a restriction. It is in fact a means to enable adventurers to craft while adventuring. If said adventurer is able to find a place that is not distracting or dangerous (as per the third quote) and has (up to 2) 4hour blocks of the day remaining then he can craft normally. A Ring of Sustenance can help make this happen (still needs to find a distraction free environment to get time that is not halved.).

- Gauss

That all sounds very reasonable. Still, some official confirmation in the upcoming book would be appreciated, to elevate this from reasonable extrapolation to RAW. ^^

Andoran

Will a character's cohort create items at full price or cost for the character?

Will a cohort craft items for cost for other members of the leader's party?

With these questions and the others I asked previously, I'm not seeking a messageboard response but am simply posting questions that I've had to rule on as a DM, seen discussed on the forums, or just wondered about. I'm happy to wait for the product with additional item crafting clarifications. Cheers!


MagiMaster wrote:

There was some question about how a ring of invisibility was supposed to work. If you take everything literally, you have to say a command word, then you become invisible for 3 minutes (which messes with it's intended use), but the ring is priced at twice the expected price, so there's some room to change such details, but there's nothing in the ring's description about any such changes.

Anyway, it'd be a good example item for breaking down all the pricing and usage details.

Same thing with boots of levitation. Can I just levitate and take a nap or will I fall after the spell expires as if it had been cast?


Sean K Reynolds wrote:

In an upcoming sourcebook, we're going to write additional material for the magic item crafting rules, further explaining and clarifying the nuances of how this works. I'm going to look over existing threads, FAQ entries, and FAQ-flagged threads, but I don't want anything to slip through the cracks, so I'm asking here: Is there anything else about the magic item crafting rules that could use more explanation or examples?

In regards to the GP costs of an item, is there going to be a disscussion or explanation of the actual physical materials that go into it?

My guess would be gems, perhaps topazes in stuff with evocation bases, and onyx-types for any necromancy spells. Precious metals for other things.

With 8 schools, a dozen cleric domains, and another dozen spell descriptors, it's far too much for one person to be able to work out with house rules.

Another thing I'd like to know would be ways for low level chars to be able to craft weaker magic items. Things like specials actions to activate them, or items that only work once per month.


Neo2151 wrote:


So to create the wand of Stoneskin the wizard would need to pay material expenses equal to 23,000gp and it would take you 21 days of crafting time.

Um, Stoneskin is 3rd level for Summoner: so it should be cheaper.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Starbuck_II wrote:
Neo2151 wrote:


So to create the wand of Stoneskin the wizard would need to pay material expenses equal to 23,000gp and it would take you 21 days of crafting time.
Um, Stoneskin is 3rd level for Summoner: so it should be cheaper.

...if a summoner makes it :)


Pathfinder Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Cheapy wrote:
Starbuck_II wrote:
Neo2151 wrote:


So to create the wand of Stoneskin the wizard would need to pay material expenses equal to 23,000gp and it would take you 21 days of crafting time.
Um, Stoneskin is 3rd level for Summoner: so it should be cheaper.
...if a summoner makes it :)

Thus my comment earlier in the thread about how spells need to have a base level/caster level to use as the market price, given how messy class based costs are. Then some classes would make more money off the wands than others, but the wands would be based off a specific numeric formula for value. I know the system tries to use the classes, but, it doesn't handle 'clerics and wizards and druids get the same spell at different levels' since those three are considered the 'base' classes for most spells.

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
AzureKnight wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Buri wrote:
Restricting an item to a single class is actually a 30% discount.

Not if it's an item that could normally only be used by said class.

In my games. restrictions ADD cost, not substract it. The only time I ever allow a restriction to deduct cost is when it restricts the PLAYER.

That is interesting for a house rule LazarX, but the official rules are quite clear that it grants a 30% discount.

"Item Requires Specific Class or Alignment to Use: Even more restrictive than requiring a skill, this limitation cuts the price by 30%."

I'll be honest I hate that rule, it allows players to metagame and discount all their items if you follow it RAW.

Read the rest of that section. It also says that the whole thing should not be applied blindly, especially in cases of restrictions that don't restrict.

And so what if it's a house rule? James Jacobs isn't going to beat down your door. Heck, he uses house rules, the PFS Campaign itself has a whole book of house rules. You can not run a balanced workable game without house ruling. You can however very easily wreck a game by sticking narrowmindedly to RAW.

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
mdt wrote:

This brings up something that's always bothered me. The disparity between wands with regards to wand costs.

If a spell is a 1st level spell for say, Rangers, and a 2nd level spell for say, Clerics, and a third level spell for say, Wizards/Sorcerers, then the wands are costed for Clerics & Wizards/Sorcerers.

Ranger Rick however is not generally the type to set up a magic item stall as opposed to Wally Wizard. Heck, Ranger Rick doesn't even like being in cities more than he has to be. Similarly Peter Paladin dedicates his feats to smiting evil, not to setting himself up as Paper and Paycheck.

Taldor RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

LazarX wrote:
Ranger Rick however is not generally the type to set up a magic item stall as opposed to Wally Wizard. Heck, Ranger Rick doesn't even like being in cities more than he has to be. Similarly Peter Paladin dedicates his feats to smiting evil, not to setting himself up as Paper and Paycheck.

I'm okay with that as long as Ranger Rick isn't saying "No sir I don't make those cheap wands of resist energy you've been hearing about" while at the same time saying "Hunter's howl? Sure, we have a whole rack of those over here..." If wands/potions/etc of spells that would be cheaper if cast by paladins/rangers are rare, then ones of spells that are paladin/ranger exclusive should be equally rare.


AzureKnight wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Buri wrote:
Restricting an item to a single class is actually a 30% discount.

Not if it's an item that could normally only be used by said class.

In my games. restrictions ADD cost, not substract it. The only time I ever allow a restriction to deduct cost is when it restricts the PLAYER.

That is interesting for a house rule LazarX, but the official rules are quite clear that it grants a 30% discount.

"Item Requires Specific Class or Alignment to Use: Even more restrictive than requiring a skill, this limitation cuts the price by 30%."

I'll be honest I hate that rule, it allows players to metagame and discount all their items if you follow it RAW.

There is no RAW for determining custom item creation costs, because there are no rules at all for determining that. There are guidelines. And you know what? This is what they say:

PRD wrote:
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.

The primary way is to compare it to already existing items. A wizard only scroll of permanency is just as powerful as any other scroll of permanency, so that's the price.

Also, the guidelines are ambigous, refering to crafting cost as "half the _base_ price". What constitutes a base price is not clear - as been mentioned earlier here, it probably does not include costly spell components in wands. Likewise, it probably does not include the reduction in cost for limiting to certain classes/races - especially since that section specifically mentions "price" rather than cost.

tl:dr;
- There are no rules, just guidelines.
- The guidelines themselves say "don't game the guidelines".
- The guidelines implies no reduction in crafting cost, just in price.


Pathfinder Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
ryric wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Ranger Rick however is not generally the type to set up a magic item stall as opposed to Wally Wizard. Heck, Ranger Rick doesn't even like being in cities more than he has to be. Similarly Peter Paladin dedicates his feats to smiting evil, not to setting himself up as Paper and Paycheck.
I'm okay with that as long as Ranger Rick isn't saying "No sir I don't make those cheap wands of resist energy you've been hearing about" while at the same time saying "Hunter's howl? Sure, we have a whole rack of those over here..." If wands/potions/etc of spells that would be cheaper if cast by paladins/rangers are rare, then ones of spells that are paladin/ranger exclusive should be equally rare.

Yep, this is why I don't like this argument. I'm perfectly fine with people saying 'well, rangers do not craft'. Ok, then there are no wands of Ranger specific spells. Oh? You still want those, then we're back to the problem of spell/caster level variance.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

"Item Requires Skill to Use: Some items require a specific skill to get them to function. This factor should reduce the cost about 10%.

Item Requires Specific Class or Alignment to Use: Even more restrictive than requiring a skill, this limitation cuts the price by 30%."

Note the key difference in wording there - class/alignment/etc restrictions cut the *PRICE* of the item, the resale value, not the crafting cost. Why? Because they're just as hard to make, but a lot harder to move at the shop since so many people can't use them. If I specced to craft a 50k base cost weapon that can only be weilded by Chaotic Groovy Noodlemancers named Father Dagon, it would still cost me 25k in materials to make myself (or have another PC craft)... it'd just be treated as a 35k market price item should I ever want to sell it (meaning it'd only get me 17.5k tops, provided I could even find another store catering to Noodlemancers with the initials FD).


If you ever spend 25k to only get 17.5k you're bad at business.


On thinking about it, magic crafters in the one to three skill level range needs way to be able to learn how to start crafing the wonderous items at skill level four and craft other type skills at skill level five.

What I have been thinking about is being able to use the zero level spells to make weak one use magical items that the magic will leak out of and become useless within a set period of time (not more than a month at the max)if not used before then.

Item sell would be very low on the order of one to two copper for a +1 temp hp band-aid to max of 25 gold for a patch to put on a person to stablize them when you have no heal on hand to do it.

I feel this would be in keeping with the current core rules as none of the item could be made to last. Crafting/spellcraft check would still be required at the end of crafting to see if you were able to make the item.


Buri wrote:
If you ever spend 25k to only get 17.5k you're bad at business.

Precisely. It's already less of a profit for a store that spends 25k to make an item that only sells for 35k... when a player crafts the item, they still have to spend 25k to make it and only get half of market price to sell it back, which is 17.5k. Which is why it's a terrible idea to try and make the item you craft all kinds of restricted to get a 'discount'.

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

Hey, folks, just an FYI, some of these questions are more appropriate for a FAQ than the upcoming book talking about campaign economics of item crafting, but I'll make sure they're taken care of.


Jason, Sean, et al: How does one consider the variable costs of certain spells with the set costs of spell items, such as potions and scrolls?

Take animate dead (cost based on undead HD), restoration (cost based on what it cures), permanency (cost based on spell made permanent), or limited wish/wish (which can duplicate other spells, incurring their costs) for example. When making a scroll of these spells, how do the material components factor in exactly?

If I make a scroll of restoration, how much am I paying for the material component? Do I need to choose whether or not the spell can heal permanent negative levels during the crafting period, paying the appropriate costs? If so, and I pay the higher costs (1,000gp in this case to remove a permanent negative level) can the spell still heal ability damage, or can it now only heal permanent negative levels?

Same question in regards permanency.

If I make a scroll of permanency, how much am I paying for the material components? Do I need to choose then and there which spell it can make permanent, paying the appropriate costs? Or can I pay an arbitrary amount, and have the spell permanency anything under that amount?

Or are these spells an exception and their material component costs can be paid when cast, rather than when crafted?

In short, when one of my players says he wants to make a scroll of one of the above spells, how much does it end up costing him, and what are its limitations (if any) when cast?

If you must pay the appropriate cost for the appropriate effect, then why doesn't this appear to be reflected in the magic item generation rules of Ultimate Equipment or any other source? Also, when a module gives you a ring of three wishes, or a scroll of restoration, can it be used to duplicate a spell with a material component cost of more than 10,000gp or to remove a permanent negative level, respectively?


Not so much as a question - but more of a high level crafting thing - I'd love to see more information on what it takes to create artifacts, huge areas of permanent spell effects, and unique items. There are whole lists of unique items and they often give the requirements for the items themselves, but it would be nice to have more flavor information on why these things are unique...as in, what certain ritual affects might have on crafting an item. To take a real world example - the traditional means of forging a katana include everything from the outfit they wear to where the ore comes from. It would be really cool to have rules for certain things, even down to a special plant they use to make the ink for harrow decks. Special rules for using special materials - and having all of those materials in one book would be awesome too.

edit - to clarify - I'd like more fluff for crafting info. Crunch is actually pretty clear for most of it IMO.

Silver Crusade

Sean could add a simpl conversion for metamagic rods to rings that do the smae thing? A blade bound magus would craft a metamagic ring so he would not need to have three hands to cast a meatmagic effect and still be able to spell strke.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite.

I would like to see rules for gathering crafting materials. For example if you killed a unicorn, the horn should be a very potent magic item component that could count towards crafting certain items. What about the idea of say ground up pixie wings being used for say dust of illusion. Stuff like that.

I would love to see rules giving guidelines for GM's who want to allow their players to "collect" rare components in the course of their adventures.


I can't believe I missed this. If it is not too late there are magic items that require one of the casters be spontaneous, or the caster be and elf. Can you bypass these by adding +5 to the DC.

There was also an issue concerning the base DC of the item. I think it was caster level +5 and caster level +10 somewhere else in the book. That may have been fixed already though.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Fergie wrote:
I think there was some recent confusion about accelerated crafting. Does it allow you to create stuff faster, or just spend less time per day on crafting.

We're leaning toward "you can create stuff faster, in that if you spend two 4-hour time chunks to get a total of 16 hours of work done in a day, you're making faster progress toward the total time needed to craft the item."

Can you guys think of any weird or dangerous repercussions to allowing this?

I think this is a great idea. It is not like people will be regularly held to only 4 hours of crafting time so it is better to be able to double the use of the crafting time. It also helps for those games that don't give you a lot of time to craft because the bad guys keep the heroes on the move, the entire time. AoW and Carrion Crown I am looking at you.

PS:Those are not the only ones that do that.


Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Can you purposefully create a cursed magic item? Or what's the requirement for an an item that accomplishes an identical effect?

Good question. :)


mdt wrote:

Here's one that keeps popping up on the forums :

Can you duplicate an existing armor property by creating armor with a constant spell effect, and pay a fraction the price.

Here's the one that comes to mind with this, Constant Mage Armor vs Bracers of Armor, or Constant Resist Energy vs Energy Resistance Armor Bonus.

The armor bonus one is probably the one I see most, and the people who advance it say it's valid under the item creation rules :

Continuous Item : Spell Level * Caster Level * 2,000 gp
1 (They insist using Ranger scrolls and UMD or Ranger casting it) * 4 * 2000 = 8000gp, saving 10K. Then they do the 7th level version to get it up to 20 for 1 * 10 (7th level ranger) * 2000 = 20,000 (just 2K more than the armor ability).

Myself, I think this is BS, but it comes up in the rules forum repeatedly and the people that advocate it insist it's pure RAW and wonderfully intended by the Devs. Blech. There needs to be a statement about custom items not duplicating existing magic items for cheaper.

There is no RAW for magic items, only guidelines. I know you know this, but it bears repeating. In short it should be clarified that if your new idea circumvents the price of an existing item that you have to speak to your GM since rules that don't exist can't really allow it. :)


mdt wrote:
Did anyone mention rules on 'improving' specific magic items (increasing enhancement bonus, or adding other non-gold bonuses)?

+1


Explain how a construct is not a magic item, and an intelligent magic item is not a construct, even though it is similar. I have had to explain this more times on the boards than I wanted to.


wraithstrike wrote:
Explain how a construct is not a magic item, and an intelligent magic item is not a construct, even though it is similar. I have had to explain this more times on the boards than I wanted to.

Intelligent items are constructs though, aren't they?

Intelligent Magical Item Rules wrote:
Intelligent items can actually be considered creatures because they have Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores. Treat them as constructs. Intelligent items often have the ability to illuminate their surroundings at will (as magic weapons do); many cannot see otherwise.


Ravingdork wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Explain how a construct is not a magic item, and an intelligent magic item is not a construct, even though it is similar. I have had to explain this more times on the boards than I wanted to.

Intelligent items are constructs though, aren't they?

Intelligent Magical Item Rules wrote:
Intelligent items can actually be considered creatures because they have Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores. Treat them as constructs. Intelligent items often have the ability to illuminate their surroundings at will (as magic weapons do); many cannot see otherwise.

No, they are not constructs. "Can be considered creatures.." and "treat as constructs" means they are not. It is only saying treat them as constructs for certain purposes.

If they were constructs they would be listed as constructs instead of telling you to treat them as constructs.

edit:Another example
Constructs as an example can not be dispelled. Intelligent magic items can.


Pathfinder Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:


There is no RAW for magic items, only guidelines. I know you know this, but it bears repeating. In short it should be clarified that if your new idea circumvents the price of an existing item that you have to speak to your GM since rules that don't exist can't really allow it. :)

You know, and I know it, but there are a sizable contingent of people who insist that if it's in the book, it's RAW and you can't gainsay it. Ashiel, for example, insists that you can cast permanent Energy Resistance on armor for a fraction of the price of the Energy Resistance armor property, and get a better defense against energy in the bargain.


mdt wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


There is no RAW for magic items, only guidelines. I know you know this, but it bears repeating. In short it should be clarified that if your new idea circumvents the price of an existing item that you have to speak to your GM since rules that don't exist can't really allow it. :)
You know, and I know it, but there are a sizable contingent of people who insist that if it's in the book, it's RAW and you can't gainsay it. Ashiel, for example, insists that you can cast permanent Energy Resistance on armor for a fraction of the price of the Energy Resistance armor property, and get a better defense against energy in the bargain.

That would just give energy resistance to the armor, not to you.

But even with that aside resist energy can only be cast on creatures anyway.

This of course assumes the spell can be made permanent in the first place.

PS:I know I am preaching to the choir. I just wanted to write that in case anyone else has the same idea. :)


Pathfinder Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
mdt wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


There is no RAW for magic items, only guidelines. I know you know this, but it bears repeating. In short it should be clarified that if your new idea circumvents the price of an existing item that you have to speak to your GM since rules that don't exist can't really allow it. :)
You know, and I know it, but there are a sizable contingent of people who insist that if it's in the book, it's RAW and you can't gainsay it. Ashiel, for example, insists that you can cast permanent Energy Resistance on armor for a fraction of the price of the Energy Resistance armor property, and get a better defense against energy in the bargain.

That would just give energy resistance to the armor, not to you.

But even with that aside resist energy can only be cast on creatures anyway.

This of course assumes the spell can be made permanent in the first place.

PS:I know I am preaching to the choir. I just wanted to write that in case anyone else has the same idea. :)

Wraith, you're misunderstanding. When I say permanent, I mean permanent as in, a magic item that provides a permanent spell benefit.

From Magic Item Creation :

Use-activated or continuous Spell level x caster level x 2,000 gp2
2 If a continuous item has an effect based on a spell with a duration measured in rounds, multiply the cost by 4. If the duration of the spell is 1 minute/level, multiply the cost by 2, and if the duration is 10 minutes/level, multiply the cost by 1.5. If the spell has a 24-hour duration or greater, divide the cost in half.

Basically, the argument is, you can make a continuous spell item of energy resistance that gives better effects than the armor property for a fraction of the price (usually done with casters who have the spell at the lowest level possible).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I found the post MDT. I still disagree with his argument. :)

You can't just ignore the rules and say you are using the rules even if you think the rules are wrong. <--This is not for MDT

If you think the devs made an error start an FAQ. Since the prices are subject to being ad-hoc'd maybe the devs felt like the formula would not be good to use. <--This is not for MDT.

I now return you back to the magic item creation mass FAQ. :)


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Hey, folks, just an FYI, some of these questions are more appropriate for a FAQ than the upcoming book talking about campaign economics of item crafting, but I'll make sure they're taken care of.

Ooooh, okay. I got one thing that would need clarification, then ( which kinda puts it in the FAQ territory, but also in the context of clarifying via that book how things interact ):

How does WBL interact with the challenge rating system? The core assumption is of course a party of four PCs, built at 15 point buy. But I've been told, while complaining about how magic item crafting is a fundamentally unbalancing factor in campaigns, that WBL is only a guideline ( kinda like the pirate codex ^^ ), so it doesn't factor as heavily into balance as I was trying to assert.

If you could enter some clarification into that new book of how much variation in WBL is good for a campaign, it'd be very helpful.


magnuskn:

How is magic item crafting fundamentally unbalancing?

It only becomes unbalancing if the crafter is supplying items at half price for an entire group. Only the crafter is allowed to benefit from the decreased price of items he crafts.

- Gauss


Pathfinder Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Gauss wrote:

magnuskn:

How is magic item crafting fundamentally unbalancing?

It only becomes unbalancing if the crafter is supplying items at half price for an entire group. Only the crafter is allowed to benefit from the decreased price of items he crafts.

- Gauss

Why would the crafter not be allowed to make his companions items at half-price as well? Once the game starts, he can do any crafting he wants, and if he doesn't charge his allies, then they all get a doubling of WBL gains.

By that same logic, there are no rules that say the group can't have been adventuring for years, and that the crafter can't have been crafting for them for years. The FAQ on the crafting being allowed to violate WBL guidelines means that, since WBL is only a guideline, and crafting can violate it, there's no rules about how it can violate it. So crafting for your allies you've been adventuring with since kindergarden would seem to be at least a valid argument. Basically, why would you be able to craft for your allies in game from level 5 to 10, but if you started at level 10, and said you were all friends from 5 to 10, you'd not be able to do the same boost crafting for them?


Gauss wrote:

magnuskn:

How is magic item crafting fundamentally unbalancing?

It only becomes unbalancing if the crafter is supplying items at half price for an entire group. Only the crafter is allowed to benefit from the decreased price of items he crafts.

- Gauss

Uh, nice house-rule, but if we go by RAW, the crafter can craft things at half-price for all of the group.

The only balancing factors in Pathfinder for magic item crafting are time constraints and incoming money. In homebrewn campaigns the GM can always cap the money influx to do some balancing of his own. If we go by APs as written however, the income of an AP module is about 120% WBL for four characters ( with the assumption that everything gets sold... if players keep stuff for their characters, the ratio gets even better ).

Which is why I assert that, if we go by the basic parameters of "15 point buy, 4 characters, AP as written", magic item crafting becomes an unbalancing factor to the parameters around which encounters are built.

Re-adjustment by the GM can always happen, but you can say that about every aspect of the game. Why not try to inhibit the impact of a factor which makes it more difficult to balance encounters by making an adjustment at the root of the problem?

Well, that was a bit off-topic. Sorry. ^^

Andoran

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
some of these questions are more appropriate for a FAQ than the upcoming book talking about campaign economics of item crafting, but I'll make sure they're taken care of.

Thank you!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Hey, folks, just an FYI, some of these questions are more appropriate for a FAQ than the upcoming book talking about campaign economics of item crafting, but I'll make sure they're taken care of.

Ooooh, okay. I got one thing that would need clarification, then ( which kinda puts it in the FAQ territory, but also in the context of clarifying via that book how things interact ):

How does WBL interact with the challenge rating system? The core assumption is of course a party of four PCs, built at 15 point buy. But I've been told, while complaining about how magic item crafting is a fundamentally unbalancing factor in campaigns, that WBL is only a guideline ( kinda like the pirate codex ^^ ), so it doesn't factor as heavily into balance as I was trying to assert.

If you could enter some clarification into that new book of how much variation in WBL is good for a campaign, it'd be very helpful.

Nothing changes. WBL is a guideline. Some people give their player double the treasure without any trouble, and since the same amount of money can buy wildly different things you can't really say X amount of extra money gives you Y.

I have never had any trouble with crafting as an example. It seems that it depends on a GM's style of running a game, and what he likes to do than anything else, well along with his system mastery and the players.


Pathfinder Card Game, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
I can't believe I missed this. If it is not too late there are magic items that require one of the casters be spontaneous, or the caster be and elf. Can you bypass these by adding +5 to the DC.

I spoke about this with Sean at GenCon and he said that yes, you can bypass racial or caster type requirements with a +5 DC.

Although I did pose these questions on the first page (of this thread) just so it is clarified in the book.


Hobbun wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
I can't believe I missed this. If it is not too late there are magic items that require one of the casters be spontaneous, or the caster be and elf. Can you bypass these by adding +5 to the DC.

I spoke about this with Sean at GenCon and he said that yes, you can bypass racial or caster type requirements with a +5 DC.

Although I did pose these questions on the first page (of this thread) just so it is clarified in the book.

Unless it's a construct you're making. Then you can't bypass any caster level requirements.

Says so in Ultimate Magic.


magnuskn and mdt:

The FAQ on WBL and how it relates to crafting means that a player must either pay full price if he does not have the crafting feat (with half of the price going into the ether) or the GM needs to cut the amount of treasure handed out to said player. Either way results in the same thing.

Example:
Player 1 crafts a +6 Belt of Giant Strength at half price for Player 2. Player 2 does not have the feat Craft Wondrous Item. Player 2 is now 18,000gp over WBL.

Option 1 to fix this: The GM cuts Player 2's next treasure reward to balance him out.

Option 2 to fix this: If Player 1 was doing this for everyone then the GM gives each individual player specific equipment handouts in order to balance everyone out.

Neither solution is ideal. The players have created a balance problem for the GM by crafting for everyone at half price.

My group allows a player to craft for another player (convienience) but the extra gold goes to non-WBL purposes such as city building, charitable donations or whatnot.

Frankly, the entire economics of the game is flawed due to the mechanics required to maintain balance. This is just one more mechanic that disrupts how the economics should work. If you follow the economic side, the game becomes imbalanced.

- Gauss


Gauss wrote:

magnuskn and mdt:

The FAQ on WBL and how it relates to crafting means that a player must either pay full price if he does not have the crafting feat (with half of the price going into the ether) or the GM needs to cut the amount of treasure handed out to said player. Either way results in the same thing.

Example:
Player 1 crafts a +6 Belt of Giant Strength at half price for Player 2. Player 2 does not have the feat Craft Wondrous Item. Player 2 is now 18,000gp over WBL.

Option 1 to fix this: The GM cuts Player 2's next treasure reward to balance him out.

Option 2 to fix this: If Player 1 was doing this for everyone then the GM gives each individual player specific equipment handouts in order to balance everyone out.

Neither solution is ideal. The players have created a balance problem for the GM by crafting for everyone at half price.

My group allows a player to craft for another player (convienience) but the extra gold goes to non-WBL purposes such as city building, charitable donations or whatnot.

Frankly, the entire economics of the game is flawed due to the mechanics required to maintain balance. This is just one more mechanic that disrupts how the economics should work. If you follow the economic side, the game becomes imbalanced.

- Gauss

That is exactly what I am saying. Only that I think that "leave it to the GM" is a worse remedy than "cure the problem at the root".

Well, the book obviously isn't about a cure, but rather about clarifications. Hence my wish for clarification about how WBL relates to CR in adventure building and how magic item crafting influences those factors.


There is no "official" answer because everyone's game is different, and this is something that depends more on the group. I have had casters craft for themselves, for the group, and for both. It has never been an issue. Yeah some of those games have actually had a decent amount of time to craft items. As for going above WBL some GM's ignore WBL, and they don't have players crafting. If you go above WBL by crafting or the GM turning a blind eye the results should be the same so I can't really say I believe crafting is universal issue. I think it can be an issue, but it is all circumstantial. All the devs can really do is hypothesise about what they think might happen, but even then a GM can will have to account for point buy and various other factors, and by then whatever the devs said might not matter. I don't think we need the devs to theorycraft.

201 to 250 of 759 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / Magic Item Crafting: any unresolved questions? All Messageboards

©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.