Yeah, chugging three potions in a combat doesn't happen so often. However, using additional long-duration buff effects which you know will be replaced later via the adjusting WBL will elevate the power level of a group quite a bit.
|
See this is what I dont understand. You say the costs I cite dont exist. Now I dont know how your table works, but the materials for crafting? The spell scrolls? The ink to scribe them in my spellbook and the time to study them and scribe them? I actually had to cross those gold piece amounts off my character sheet. That +6 physical perfection belt? It takes 144 game days and 72000gp to make. I had to learn those spells to avoid the +15 dc. I had to spend the +5dc to keep from wasting 8 hours of every day saving my party a little coin. Otherwise thats a dc36 item there boys and girls. Imagine failing that roll. Should be an easy roll with a take 10 by the time our party has 72000gp to flush into a single item... So you're right. Thats a fake drawback. And thats if only one person in the party wants one. Maybe the next guy in the party doesnt want one but wants some other 144000gp item that he should have to stay competitive at this cr... Thats another 4 months of crafting just for him.
Let us break this belt down.
If you are crafting a Belt of Physical Perfection, you are at least 16th level.
It requires 3 spells, and 1 feat. All of the spells are 2nd level (bear's endurance, bull's strength, cat's grace) so at worst you are spending 450, total for the spells. Assuming you don't already have them as a 16th level caster...which is probably likely given how common the spells are.
So just put that +15 DC to the side, because...no.
So the DC is 5, plus the caster level for the spell (16) and I'll give you the +5 to speed it up. DC 21.
You are a wizard. You are going to put a point in spellcraft each level because you need it, and because you have lots of skill points because your casting is Int based. So your spellcraft is going to be 19. (16+3 for class skill). That is assuming no other modifications, just taking a rank each level and the class bonus.
So, we have an item that is base price 144,000 (144 days), which you are crafting at double speed (77 days) or about 2 and a half months.
The exaggeration is the complaint being held against you.
Unless I am mistaken, you can reliably craft the belt as soon as you reach a spellcraft check of 11, i.e. a third level Wizard with those three spells in his spellbook and Skill Focus: Spellcraft can do it.
The point I am trying to make is that, just because the party crafter took a crafting feat, it doesn't mean that his free time suddenly belongs to the whole party. It is a quite bizarre point of view that, by taking a crafting feat, the crafter agrees to completely give up his own time to craft for everybody.As much as I personally disagree with SKRs FAQ entry that crafters are only supposed to craft for themselves, it at least doesn't share this bizarre super-communism view. Yeah, the crafter is helping out his buddies by making himself a better player by taking this feat. I don't see any good reason why he suddenly is obligated to drop all his free time into making free stuff for all the rest of the party.
Who ever said that crafting for his companions, whom he depends on for mutual protection, would consume all of his free time?
You're so concerned with the discounting of crafting leading to imbalances because the crafter is profiteering. The cause of that problem is so easy to fix on the players' side of things yet giving even an inch to it gives the whole yard to super-communism? I'm not sure I have the words to express how silly that sounds.
The point I am trying to make is that, just because the party crafter took a crafting feat, it doesn't mean that his free time suddenly belongs to the whole party. It is a quite bizarre point of view that, by taking a crafting feat, the crafter agrees to completely give up his own time to craft for everybody.As much as I personally disagree with SKRs FAQ entry that crafters are only supposed to craft for themselves, it at least doesn't share this bizarre super-communism view. Yeah, the crafter is helping out his buddies by making himself a better player by taking this feat. I don't see any good reason why he suddenly is obligated to drop all his free time into making free stuff for all the rest of the party.
Who ever said that crafting for his companions, whom he depends on for mutual protection, would consume all of his free time?
You're so concerned with the discounting of crafting leading to imbalances because the crafter is profiteering. The cause of that problem is so easy to fix on the players' side of things yet giving even an inch to it gives the whole yard to super-communism? I'm not sure I have the words to express how silly that sounds.
There is a large difference in discussing the rules as they are and in discussing how I would like them to be. You are right of course that I didn't mark that difference very clearly, so I apologize for that.
However, if you think that a crafter in a normal AP taking Craft Wondrous Item would not need to spend all his free time to accomodate a full parties wishes for wondrous items, you are not looking very closely at the numbers, especially when we get into the higher levels.
Look, I personally don't think that asking for 75% market price is a very nice thing to do, nor that it is good for game balance. But neither do I think that a crafter even has to offer to craft stuff for his companions, unless he enjoys spending all his day in a lab.
The problem with much of this is that it seems to take away the fun of the game.
Please bear with me here…
I really don’t mind if DM’s want to homebrew systems where magic is rare. SS mentioned his world does not have magic shops, and that’s okay. As long as the world is consistent, if crafting can exist, then someone is going to craft. It may be the advisor to the king making disguising hats for the royal spies. Someone must be making stuff to further their goals….
<shrug>
But I feel that people who are arguing against the current crafting rules are really arguing against the players having the gear that they feel that the characters should have.
If the goal of the game, (and it is a game), is to have fun. Does it really matter if a person makes a +3 sword or a +10 perception bonus ring? Really?
OR is it an argument to minimize the free will of the characters?
Yeah, well. The spells cast into a Belt of Physical Perfection are three level two spells. Also see this FAQ entry here:
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
So, it's perfectly rules-legal for a third level Wizard to craft a Belt of Physical Perfection. Where he'd get the requisite 72.000 GP is another kind of question. ^^
|
|
@Franko a - There is an ongoing debate that underlines most of these threads. Rather than try and present both sides, I will present mine and let those who disagree state what they think.
There is a social contract at play when you sit down at a table as a player that you are entering a world created by the GM.
It is the GMs obligation to be fair and make the world a place players want to explore and adventure in. If the GM fails at this, the players will not come back.
But the GM is not Burger King. Players don't get to have it there way, all the time.
Your character is brought into the world by you, created by you. The decisions your character makes should not be interfered with by the GM, and the GM should...no must, always be fair and try and make the adventure one you want to be a part of.
But they don't have to give the players whatever the players demand.
The players don't know what is going on behind the curtain. And if they did, it would ruin the fun and challenge of the game.
Should a GM try and make avaible things the player will want to acheive what they want to achieve within the setting? Absolutely. Should the GM re-write the setting to the ever changing whims of the players at the table at a given time.
No.
In context with this debate, the rules allow players to craft things. That is a part of the world, and the GM shouldn't interfere with that unless it is discussed beforehand as part of the world/social contract of playing in that game.
But there is what you can make within the rules, and the guidelines of what could potentially exist outside of the rules, and they aren't the same thing.
If your GM says no to something in the rules, without stating this was the case prior to the social contract, you have a right to be annoyed.
If your GM says no to allowing something that the rule specifically says is GM discretion, that is what guidelines and GM discretion are all about.
The GM knows what is going on. The players don't. If you don't trust your GM and don't have faith that they will make an enjoyable game, don't sit down at that table.
But sitting down at the table as a player doesn't give you control of the world or access to whatever you want, whenever you want it.
That is why it is a game with dice and not just a daydream you are having where you always win.
@Franko a - There is an ongoing debate that underlines most of these threads. Rather than try and present both sides, I will present mine and let those who disagree state what they think.
There is a social contract at play when you sit down at a table as a player that you are entering a world created by the GM.
It is the GMs obligation to be fair and make the world a place players want to explore and adventure in. If the GM fails at this, the players will not come back.
But the GM is not Burger King. Players don't get to have it there way, all the time.
Your character is brought into the world by you, created by you. The decisions your character makes should not be interfered with by the GM, and the GM should...no must, always be fair and try and make the adventure one you want to be a part of.
But they don't have to give the players whatever the players demand.
The players don't know what is going on behind the curtain. And if they did, it would ruin the fun and challenge of the game.
Should a GM try and make avaible things the player will want to acheive what they want to achieve within the setting? Absolutely. Should the GM re-write the setting to the ever changing whims of the players at the table at a given time.
No.
In context with this debate, the rules allow players to craft things. That is a part of the world, and the GM shouldn't interfere with that unless it is discussed beforehand as part of the world/social contract of playing in that game.
But there is what you can make within the rules, and the guidelines of what could potentially exist outside of the rules, and they aren't the same thing.
If your GM says no to something in the rules, without stating this was the case prior to the social contract, you have a right to be annoyed.
If your GM says no to allowing something that the rule specifically says is GM discretion, that is what guidelines and GM discretion are all about.
The GM knows what is going on. The players don't. If you don't trust your GM...
I really dont disagree with anything you say.
When I play, i do take what the DM says into account. It is his/her world. The characters that I try to play do try to fit into those worlds logically. And I try to let the DM know what I would like the character to have an oppurtunity to do.When I dm, i try to engage with the players and ask what they want the characters to do. If the character does something brilliant, i will let it change what I had planned happen.
When the character does something stupid, on purpose, i use the logical consequences.
I want to have fun, and i want those around me to have fun. Maybe i am reading too much into what people are saying...
Well said, ciretose.
A lot of these discussions seem to say "ignoring the game world and the fact that the GM is in charge of it, the rules say that players can do something, so obviously they can". Which just isn't true. Because there's a GM who is in charge of the game world.
As a GM, I might choose, one day, to hand out (approximately) 100,000 gp worth of treasure, because I know that the party is lagging a bit in terms of gear. Party of 5, that's 20,000 gp each that I want them to have. There's a wizard in the party who is a crafter with all the feats. He can make anything, given time, and right now there's time in the campaign.
Option 1) hand out 50,000 gp in the knowledge that the wizard is going to turn that into 100,000 gp of items.
Option 2) hand out 100,000 gp worth of items that I know the part wants.
Option 3) hand out 100,000 gp worth of items that I know the party doesn't want, in the knowledge that they'll sell them for 50,000 and the wizard will use that 50,000 to craft 100,000 worth of items that they do want.
Option 4) hand out 25,000 gp and 50,000 gp worth of items that the players might or might not want, it doesn't really matter, because the crafting wizard doubles the value of coins to the party, making that 25,000 in coinage equivalent to 50,000 gp in items.
Option 5) some different proportion of wealth splitting, bearing in mind that when it comes to magic items every gp I hand out is worth 2 to each characters WBL.
It is impossible for players to screw this up. They have zero control over it. They can be granted the appearance of control - just hand them the coins from option 1 and let them make what they want - but they do not, ever, control the amount of wealth the party has.
Therefore the only possible issue with crafting is that it breaks... What? I'm actually trying to figure out what it breaks. I can't.
Sure, custom items are a risk. A bad or inexperienced GM could make a significant mistake and let something broken into the game. That happens. The way to fix it is to have the GM and players talk to each other, not to rewrite the magic item crafting system.
|
The problem with much of this is that it seems to take away the fun of the game.
Please bear with me here…I really don’t mind if DM’s want to homebrew systems where magic is rare. SS mentioned his world does not have magic shops, and that’s okay. As long as the world is consistent, if crafting can exist, then someone is going to craft. It may be the advisor to the king making disguising hats for the royal spies. Someone must be making stuff to further their goals….
<shrug>
But I feel that people who are arguing against the current crafting rules are really arguing against the players having the gear that they feel that the characters should have.If the goal of the game, (and it is a game), is to have fun. Does it really matter if a person makes a +3 sword or a +10 perception bonus ring? Really?
OR is it an argument to minimize the free will of the characters?
But what you are suggesting is just as much a playstyle as what I propose in my worlds. There is a reason why Wizards have the option of taking metamagic instead of crafting.
Getting the items you want is a playstyle.
The problem with much of this is that it seems to take away the fun of the game.
Please bear with me here…I really don’t mind if DM’s want to homebrew systems where magic is rare. SS mentioned his world does not have magic shops, and that’s okay. As long as the world is consistent, if crafting can exist, then someone is going to craft. It may be the advisor to the king making disguising hats for the royal spies. Someone must be making stuff to further their goals….
<shrug>
But I feel that people who are arguing against the current crafting rules are really arguing against the players having the gear that they feel that the characters should have.If the goal of the game, (and it is a game), is to have fun. Does it really matter if a person makes a +3 sword or a +10 perception bonus ring? Really?
OR is it an argument to minimize the free will of the characters?
But what you are suggesting is just as much a playstyle as what I propose in my worlds. There is a reason why Wizards have the option of taking metamagic instead of crafting.
Getting the items you want is a playstyle.
Getting what i want is not a playstyle... At least i dont think it is.
I can "buy in" in a world of limited magic item cration if it logically consistent.
What I want is to have fun, if its gritty, monty haul, no magic, lots or artifacts, lots of undead, lots of dragons, no dragons, spies, thieves guilds everywhere.....
none of that matters IF i am having a good time. If my character has free will. LIve/die/fail as long as its "fair"