Ignoring requirements for Magic Item crafting


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

151 to 196 of 196 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps Subscriber

Thanks for bringing that up. I was thinking about changing some of the required caster levels. I would love it if you might share any suggestions before I start doing that.


Well, here are a couple possible suggestions:
1) Examine the minimum actual requirements to create the item.
Example 1: Pearl of Power 1 only needs CL1.
Example 2: Necklace of Fireballs is CL 10 even for the 1d6 Fireballs. Doesn't make a lot of sense.

2) Ignore the CL altogether and simply go with the requirements but do not allow the +5 to bypass. This did not exist in 3.5 and that seems to be the problem some people are having.

One problem you will still have is that there are items intended for low levels but with significantly higher level requirements. This is usually because the associated spell is a higher level spell and back in 3.X what set the requirements was never really designed all that well anyhow.

Example 3: Handy Haversack is obviously ok for low levels but to craft it requires a level 5 spell and thus is caster level 9.

In short, the prerequisites are completely arbitrary and are usually a function of 'best spell fit' rather than 'when should players have this'.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps Subscriber

Good observations, thanks. As for spells as a "best fit", a problem with that is that not every single spell possibility is in the Core Rulebook. Basing it on when it should be available is a better way to do it.


Gauss, sorry for the delayed reply.

If I am a player who bought a +5 bonus to AC item for 50k gold, that will forever be deducted from my Appropriate Wealth.

If I am a player who bought consumable potions that add +5 to my AC, and everything else is the same as the first option, I will always be slightly under Appropriate Wealth.

Since you audit every other level to see how your players stack up against WBL, option one will not get as many goodies as option two, even though they are effectively the same.


John, you don't really know how I do things though. You really shouldn't assume how I do them.

I use WBL as an approximation, not as a hard and fast value. If the players are within +10 to +20% of WBL that is in line with Table 12-5 expectations (assuming that half of the 30-40 % over WBL is lost due to sold items and the other half is spent on consumables).

I also take into account if someone has been buying an inordinate amount of consumables. It shows up pretty visibly if they do so. If 3 people are close on wealth and one person is short because they keep buying and burning consumables why would I reward that person? I do not reward people for spending too much on consumables. In fact, I usually suggest that the players create a party share with consumables coming out of that.

Summary: Just because I said I audit things and if things are off I may bring them into line does not give you a clear idea of everything else I am doing. You really shouldn't assume.


Gauss wrote:
Your example of Teleport is not reasonable. Boots of Teleportation would cost 24,500gp to craft. By the time a person could do so without spending more than 1/2 of their WBL they would be level 9.

Using an example where you use the WBL chart to determine whether a PC will have access to a certain kind of gear is not really the best way to argue that the WBL isn't used to determine if an encounter might challenge PCs based on the gear they have.

You say WBL is not used to determine if a party can be expected to have gear for the purposes of determining how challenging an encounter is?

Let me give you an example of how it does:
I say to Gauss, "I have an adventure I'm working on, this encounter is should challenge a level 6 party but I'm worried the PCs might teleport around it. I know the teleport spell takes 9th-caster level, so I don't have to worry about them casting it. What do you think?"

Gauss hears teleport. He thinks of how someone might teleport, the first thing that comes to his mind is boots of teleport, he checks the price 24,500 to create, he checks the WBL to see an appropriate level that would be likely to occur, he decides it's level 9. He helpfully suggests that, No a level 6 party doesn't have the gear to do it, based on the WBL he just checked.

Whether 9th is the right or wrong answer can be determined later. The point is, even if you did it in your head and from memory, your example proves how it is used in that way.
NOT THAT IT'S THE ONLY WAY IT'S USED. Just because one of the methods uses a reverse calculation than what you are used to does not mean that isn't how it is used.

So clearly, by your own admission, (and for the sake of argument) assuming 9 is the right answer, IF an item was able to produce the same effects as a 9th-level item, it would screw up the challenges of an encounter or adventure that was designed to challenge and 8th or lower level party with assumptions that they couldn't do something readily.

Now, truthfully I said teleport and not teleport. Just like someone flying over an encounter isn't the same as someone flying over it. Sounds like semantics but the point is, if you think it's safe to say a 4th-level party won't be expected to fly over an encounter but you were just thinking of them casting fly or winged boots or a broom or carpet etc... and you don't realize that there's an item of lower level that summons a flying creature that could carry the PC it really amounts to the same thing as far as messing up the encounter and how much of a challenge it was to be. It might mess up the next several encounter because they may have taken into account this encounter.

Certainly, in many times it might be the DM's mistake or you didn't realize that there was a common cheaper item, but then you reassess the challenge expectations of gear strength with the WBL numbers based on your new knowledge.

Quote:
2) Again, WBL does not become 'less accurate' because you believe items can be acquired earlier. WBL is a treasure value. The Treasure value comes with certain assumptions of equipment.

Yes, certain assumptions that become more and more hazy as power creep works into items and magical equipment lists expand. It's no different to how even well-balanced modules can slowly fail to challenge parties that are built with newer, 'not-unbalanced' just newer, rules and abilities that couldn't have been foreseen.

At first, yes it would be an issue with 'that class is stronger than the baseline' but at a certain point where it's more and more off center the point becomes, 'The baseline is wrong, we'd better recenter it to match.'


Pizza Lord, in order to have any kind of rational discussion about game system expectations we must use the WBL system as a starting point. It is how the game is designed. WBL is a core element to understanding what equipment players should get when. It is not ironclad and not involate, but it is the starting point.

Since you appear to be unwilling to use the same starting point most everyone else (and the game system) uses it appears we are at cross purposes and have nothing to discuss.

I'd be curious to know how you intend on rewarding your players? Do you just pull ideas about how much treasure your players should get out of thin air? Do you use Table 12-5? Do you use some treasure generator online? Except for the first all are in some way related to the WBL table.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I gave my first level party two billion gp each. Now they're all geared up with +6 belts and headbands and +5 swords with lots of words attached and shiny armor and boots of something or other and they just kill everything. Perhaps magic items in general should be banned? Yeah, the guidelines said not to give first-level characters two billion gp each, but they're only guidelines, and I ain't gonna let no book's "advice" tell me what to do, cause I'm a free spirit baby. In conclusion everyone is to blame except me.


So..let me get this right:

Side 1: with no WBL restrictions crafting can exceed the normal WBL that a character should have

Side 2: with WBL restrictions you can't.

Uh?

Side 1: Yes. But if WBL is unlimited for crafting purposes than why does breaking the already broken (see the beginning of the sentence) WBL matter? Didn't you already break it by giving unlimited wealth to a character? (be it by unlimited downtime or just pouring rain of loot)

Side 2: Yes.

Why is this an argument? Either wealth and downtime are a problem or they aren't. If you're giving unlimited of either than you obviously already don't care. If you're giving unlimited of either and do care-you're pulling an interesting meta game on your players...holding out all the loot and then not letting them use it...or getting mad at them for using it (but not prohibiting or preventing them in any way).

If it is limited, then they don't have infinite of either. So....no problem.

I'm confused.

Though I am surprised no one brought up custom items and the item creation tables...or price reducers.

**please if I'm missing something terribly relevant do enlighten me, but so far it seems like a pretty non issue.**


Am I the only one thinking the +5 to ignore requirements represents the Caster Jerry-Rigging the Magic to work in the item. Maybe by applying general Magical Knowledge or Knowledge from another spell.

Such as using Dragon's Breath Knowledge in place of Fireball's.


dkonen, I don't think you are missing anything.

As for custom items and item creation tables or price reducers, that element is well known as being subject to abuse and basically broken without heavy GM intervention. Why beat that horse any further? :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

okay just making sure I wasn't missing anything in the 4 pages or so of:

"But if you break the WBL then it's broken!"

vs.

"But if you don't break the WBL then it's not."

Liberty's Edge

Drachasor wrote:

1) CL was not designed to represent access level. Just look at Pearls of Power.

Actually, pearls of powers, past FAQ about them, are a perfect example of what Pizza was saying.

3.X version: can be crafted only by level 17+ casters. The players can't craft them until very late in the game, they can only buy them.
So they were relatively rare even if they were cheap items. You didn't find that every spellcaster that memorize with a bunch of them.

In Pathfinder we can make them as soon as we have craft wondrous items and the character level needed to cast a specific levels of spells.
Take the healing item I proposed a few post above. If my party wasn't made by 3 spontaneous casters and 1 one that memorize (my magus), with all the guys with healing spells being spontaneous casters, making a few pearl of powers would be as efficient as making the healing item. For 1.500 gp (crafting cost) it would be possible to make 3 level 1 pearls, that would permit us to recover 3 CLW at caster level strength or other spells. Less healing uses than the item, but stronger and way more flexible.

Changing how magic items are made greatly changed the access to this item.


Diego Rossi wrote:
Drachasor wrote:

1) CL was not designed to represent access level. Just look at Pearls of Power.

Actually, pearls of powers, past FAQ about them, are a perfect example of what Pizza was saying.

3.X version: can be crafted only by level 17+ casters. The players can't craft them until very late in the game, they can only buy them.
So they were relatively rare even if they were cheap items. You didn't find that every spellcaster that memorize with a bunch of them.

They were common low-level loot. And pretty much everyone said there was no reason to restrict crafting to 17+. So this is actually an example of how going with the CL rule made things WORSE not better.

Liberty's Edge

Rynjin wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

You have missed a few key words:

"Net result: I can do half a day worth of crating every night even while adventuring as long as the camp isn't attacked by monsters."

Most of Rynjin argument about time being a limit for crafting is that you don't have downtime to craft in a good number of AP.
But with the ring you don't need downtime. You create your own downtime.

A group is in the middle of the jungle, trekking 8 hors every day and spending some time battling monsters and setting up camp.

Guy without the ring 8 hours trekking, 2 hours eating and setting up camp, 8 hours sleeping, 2.5 hours spend doing guard duty while his companion sleep, 1 hour memorizing spells = 21.5 hours, no time to craft.

Guy with the ring 8 hours trekking, 2 hours eating and setting up camp, 2 hours sleeping, 4 hours crafting, another 2 hours of sleep to be fresh for the trek, 2.5 hours spend doing guard duty while his companion sleep, 1 hour memorizing spells = 21.5 hours, crafter for 4 hours at full effect.

You still need time. You're crafting at 1/4 speed if you do it while adventuring or traveling (the Ring of Sustenance doesn't let you get around this issue, it's a blanket statement that on adventuring days your crafting time is limited).

The way a lot of adventures run, the party could level up MULTIPLE TIMES by the time you finish any sort of big ticket item. The minor ones (1-2k gp) you can crank out in about a week apiece, but after a while, there's not much need for those any more.

Wrong Rynjin, the statements are:

1) The creator also needs a fairly quiet, comfortable, and well-lit place in which to work. Any place suitable for preparing spells is suitable for making items.

2) 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.

3) 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.

4) Work that is performed in a distracting or dangerous environment nets only half the amount of progress (just as with the adventuring caster).

Point 2 is very specific: "This time is not spent in one continuous period, but rather during lunch, morning preparation, and during watches at night."
If you work in 4 continuous hour blocks you get the full benefits unless you are affected by point 4.

Point 4 somewhat support your position, but there are a few Dev statement that crafting while traveling is not the same thing as being in a distracting environment.
The jungle example I made above show a situation in which you can use the night to craft a t full speed. Sure if you are in the middle of a dungeon and rest to continue the fight the next day you are in a distracting environment, but there is plenty of pieces of adventures where you travel from A to B without having a fight every 5 minutes.
Jade regent is a perfect example of that.

Edit:

5) You don't craft at 1/4 speed. You can squeeze 4 hours of work while doing other things and get 2 hours of work.
If you are in a distracting environment you can work 4 or 8 hours (as you should assign your work in 4 hours blocks) and get half progression.


Nothing there says that you get to craft at full speed while adventuring if you can allocate a four-hour block.

Liberty's Edge

Gauss wrote:

Well, here are a couple possible suggestions:

1) Examine the minimum actual requirements to create the item.
Example 1: Pearl of Power 1 only needs CL1.
Example 2: Necklace of Fireballs is CL 10 even for the 1d6 Fireballs. Doesn't make a lot of sense.

2) Ignore the CL altogether and simply go with the requirements but do not allow the +5 to bypass. This did not exist in 3.5 and that seems to be the problem some people are having.

One problem you will still have is that there are items intended for low levels but with significantly higher level requirements. This is usually because the associated spell is a higher level spell and back in 3.X what set the requirements was never really designed all that well anyhow.

Example 3: Handy Haversack is obviously ok for low levels but to craft it requires a level 5 spell and thus is caster level 9.

In short, the prerequisites are completely arbitrary and are usually a function of 'best spell fit' rather than 'when should players have this'.

The problem, as I see it, isn't the +5 to bypass a requirement you lack, is the ability to make something that require a spell that a full caster of the appropriate class can't cast.

17th level martial with the appropriate feats making a item that require a 9th level spell? Generally no problem (there are exceptions, but those are for spell trigger/spell completions items).

5th level full caster that make a item requiring a 7th level spell? That is a problem.

Some item has questionable spell requirement (often because in the CRB there isn't an appropriate spell), and I will correct them if needed, but having a guy that isn't even close to level needed cast Trap the soul crafting a Iron flask is a bit excessive.

Liberty's Edge

dkonen wrote:

So..let me get this right:

Side 1: with no WBL restrictions crafting can exceed the normal WBL that a character should have

Side 2: with WBL restrictions you can't.

Uh?

Side 1: Yes. But if WBL is unlimited for crafting purposes than why does breaking the already broken (see the beginning of the sentence) WBL matter? Didn't you already break it by giving unlimited wealth to a character? (be it by unlimited downtime or just pouring rain of loot)

Side 2: Yes.

Why is this an argument? Either wealth and downtime are a problem or they aren't. If you're giving unlimited of either than you obviously already don't care. If you're giving unlimited of either and do care-you're pulling an interesting meta game on your players...holding out all the loot and then not letting them use it...or getting mad at them for using it (but not prohibiting or preventing them in any way).

If it is limited, then they don't have infinite of either. So....no problem.

I'm confused.

Though I am surprised no one brought up custom items and the item creation tables...or price reducers.

**please if I'm missing something terribly relevant do enlighten me, but so far it seems like a pretty non issue.**

There is a middle way. Most of the discussion is between people that see it as "a few day of downtime at best, the only source of wealth is adventuring" and people that see it as "you have a fair quantity of downtime, depending on the kind of adventure and with some ingenuity you can get some extra income".

The when one side push toward one direction saying that it is the standard, the other side start showing how that standard acan be easily bypassed.

Liberty's Edge

Drachasor wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Drachasor wrote:

1) CL was not designed to represent access level. Just look at Pearls of Power.

Actually, pearls of powers, past FAQ about them, are a perfect example of what Pizza was saying.

3.X version: can be crafted only by level 17+ casters. The players can't craft them until very late in the game, they can only buy them.
So they were relatively rare even if they were cheap items. You didn't find that every spellcaster that memorize with a bunch of them.

They were common low-level loot. And pretty much everyone said there was no reason to restrict crafting to 17+. So this is actually an example of how going with the CL rule made things WORSE not better.

"Common loot" is a fair cry from "everyone having a half dozen of them".

When a item cost 1.000 for the first level version, 4000 for the second level version and so on, buying one has a kind of impact on what you can buy.

When crating it cost you 500 gp, then 2.000 and so on you at least can double the quantity you own. And that is a big force multiplier.
Being capable of casting haste two times instead of one, so that your group can benefit from it in two different encounters is way stronger than "Oh, he simply get a extra 3rd level spell."

Liberty's Edge

Roberta Yang wrote:
Nothing there says that you get to craft at full speed while adventuring if you can allocate a four-hour block.

Define adventuring.

For you adventuring is "We are on a ship at sea and traveling for a week to get to the Forgotten Island"?
For me that is traveling.

"Adventuring" is very ill defined. The acceptable definition is "a day where you have some serious fight".

For the rest we use the other part of the definition: "distracting or dangerous environment". But traveling isn't a distracting and dangerous environment. If you call that distracting and dangerous, any laboratory is distracting and dangerous too.
You know, all those poisonous materials, the open flame in the brazier, the sound from the street and so on. I would be very curious to know what location could be defined as non distracting and non dangerous if you go and consider traveling dangerous and distracting.


Diego Rossi wrote:
Drachasor wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Drachasor wrote:

1) CL was not designed to represent access level. Just look at Pearls of Power.

Actually, pearls of powers, past FAQ about them, are a perfect example of what Pizza was saying.

3.X version: can be crafted only by level 17+ casters. The players can't craft them until very late in the game, they can only buy them.
So they were relatively rare even if they were cheap items. You didn't find that every spellcaster that memorize with a bunch of them.

They were common low-level loot. And pretty much everyone said there was no reason to restrict crafting to 17+. So this is actually an example of how going with the CL rule made things WORSE not better.

"Common loot" is a fair cry from "everyone having a half dozen of them".

When a item cost 1.000 for the first level version, 4000 for the second level version and so on, buying one has a kind of impact on what you can buy.

When crating it cost you 500 gp, then 2.000 and so on you at least can double the quantity you own. And that is a big force multiplier.
Being capable of casting haste two times instead of one, so that your group can benefit from it in two different encounters is way stronger than "Oh, he simply get a extra 3rd level spell."

Strengthens low level casters, but the boost doesn't hurt them. Really it just helps avoid the 5 minute workday problem (and even then doesn't help all that much). It rapidly becomes too expensive to make much of a difference. Even a 3rd level one costs 9k. Sure, 4.5k to craft, but that's still quite expensive at 5th level.

I think you really overestimate the cost-benefit of them. Staves actually give more bang for the buck pretty quickly. You can also nova with Staves, which you can't with pearls.

To say nothing of the many other magical items that are better. PoP 1 are definitely a good deal though.


Gauss wrote:
Since you appear to be unwilling to use the same starting point most everyone else (and the game system) uses it appears we are at cross purposes and have nothing to discuss.

That is untrue. I have spent a lot of time and effort and made effort to give examples. Then just because someone agrees, they ignore the starting point just say, 'That's not powerful." You want me to give you a common ground? I asked very simply what the most powerful item your 8th0level caster could create. I used Rynjin's suggestion of half-WBL based treasure as a fair evaluation in deference to him, and even gave an example.

The only person who responded to it was Drachasor and he couldn't even think of an example so we could look and see if something better could be made. His only idea of a single item was...'Uhhh...two items.... that together are better than one...'

You want me to show you that an more powerful item than you expect can be made? Then be fair to me, you just tell me, using your own build as in the example asked earlier, the most powerful item you think you can get.

Then I can say 'Well, how about this?" "Or, actually you'd have...this." Then at least other people reading can go.... "Well, he has a point, that really is significantly more powerful than what Gauss thought was possible." or "maybe they say, well, it's not." I can't gauge what every single person thinks is too powerful.

You tell me an item can't get into someone's hands before it's supposed to, prove it. You tell me the best item, of your very own determination, that you think could be made and THEN the challenge is on me. Name it. Go back and read the example, you have a lot of carte blanche.

I'm tired of saying something can be made, and being told because it take 30 days it's not possible, then when shown that it is possible, being accused of ignoring the limit or saying that 30 days equal 'Unlimited craft time'. It's the same when someone declares that a character wouldn't have enough money, and when being shown that they could, that it's apparently 'unlimited wealth!'


Pizza Lord, it is extremely difficult to read your posts when they are a wall of text. I am not surprised that someone didnt answer. Most of it is just a blur.

Even your last post could be boiled down into a few sentences but you fail to do even that courtesy.

Perhaps you could restate your example in 3 sentences or less and we can discuss it.


Gauss wrote:
restate your example in 3 sentences or less and we can discuss it.

8th-level crafter (your choice on class, caster or not).

16,500 gold piece cost limit (Half WBL with +25% fair increase for crafting feat.)

It isn't about being perfect or being the most powerful object in every situation, just a good example of the most powerful item you expect a character of that level to get access to.

Reference:
Quote:

...post the most powerful item their 8th-level crafter can make using Craft Wondrous Item or Craft Magic Arms and Armor. I am using 8th-level because that's when a non-caster could have both item creation feats with Master Craftsman and allows for the ability increase to your character.

We'll set the crafting cost at at a loose 16,500 gold. That's half WBL but with some leeway if you have a good one that should be mentioned which just squeaks past and to take into account costs that might not directly apply, like masterwork weapon price, etc. Also this isn't to represent someone just building the character and starting with that or amount of wealth, but rather having access to a reasonable amount of wealth at some point during the entire span of that level.


dkonen wrote:
**please if I'm missing something terribly relevant do enlighten me, but so far it seems like a pretty non issue.**
Quote:
"But if you break the WBL then it's broken!" vs. "But if you don't break the WBL then it's not."

That only seems to be the case because that's what they keep posting is being said.

The main focus is the crafting system as a whole. Wealth is just brought in because people keep insisting it is the great balancing factor and an insurmountable barrier. Accordingly, even attempting to prove otherwise means you want campaigns to have no limits. Hence the 'He just ignores the limits' accusations.

dkonen:
This is me, responding to you. I'm putting it like this because it's bit long. Don't read it like it's an essay, read it like it's me, sitting and talking with you and addressing what you said. It's not going to be a private message because there's a chance that some other reader will have a similar misconception and this might help them.

What I suspect, and have asked for assistance uncovering, is that because certain limits were in place on items available when those items were being made and priced/cost, a system using those same items, but allowing their acquisition without the same expected limitations, is flawed.

Some people want to insist the current crafting system is fine. They'll pay lip-service and say that it's not perfect (nothing is), but any real proof that it has obvious oversights and clearly wasn't thought-out enough that 'Someone like Pizza Lord, who can't make a coherent post, could spot something that doesn't add up," threatens them, because they know it will make people look closer and realize there may be a problem. It might not be a big problem, but a problem. If there's a problem, they'll pretend that it's a 'So what' problem, because they worry that if even a 'So what' problem gets addressed and fixed, that means that forever after, that system will have that stigma attached with it.

I am also pointing out that the system either punishes you for having the requirement or makes it no effort to ignore the requirement. This would be fine if it was all equal, but what no one denies is that you DO lose access to your class powers, you MAY be stuck with a no-longer applicable spell known for up to 2 levels. Whether you think that's a problem that needs to be changed or not isn't the issue.

The fact that they could just ignore the requirement like everyone else is not the point, because then why have the requirement at all? The +5 is not factor 98% of the time, which is almost enough to say it is never a factor. If it's never a factor and is the de facto way it should be done, then that just means it's a clumsy and pointless waste of time and space in the crafting system.

Whether you think that penalty is serious is not the issue, it's admitting that yes... that would seem to be a pretty obvious oversight. People could at least say, "I don't think it's too unbalanced, but he did actually catch a flaw that doesn't make any real sense, maybe I shouldn't just assume he doesn't know how the system works or he's a cheater... and then flat out say that as my reply to his concern."

Quote:
Though I am surprised no one brought up custom items and the item creation tables...or price reducers.

While it's certainly an option, and something that can be discussed later if a reasonable number of people can agree that it needs to be, it wouldn't be as effective right now.

Anyone can make a corner case example of an overpowered item with low cost just based on how the formula doesn't account for everything an effect can do, only its spell and caster level, and maybe duration. Since in those cases the correct answer is to compare it to the already existing items and use them as a guideline, it is the most... I guess 'proper', would be the closest term but there might be a better one, way to go about having a fair discussion.

Plus, we can just say ring of protection +3 and someone can reference it if they need to without listing everything. Let alone a custom item which would have to describe what it did in addition to its stats just so we'd know if those were even accurate. I mean, think about the page-count here. You want Gauss or Rynjin having a 3rd paragraph in their posts?


Im still not seeing your example Pizza. I am seeing the setup to the example but not the example itself.

At level 8 which item priced at 16,500gp or less is the problem?

Thank you for being concise. :)


How can I get a baseline common ground comparison of what you think is the most powerful item available from MY example. I am tired of giving examples of my own so I can just get a response, 'That isn't powerful (in my opinion).' 'Well, 2 items... at +2, taking into account a stat of...' Not every DM or game is the same.

Just give me an example, using your own methods of what you think is the most powerful item your crafter could make. It's not hard. I didn't bind your hands and force class, skill level, spell list, feat restrictions, etc. It's wide open for YOU.

You accuse me of not having common ground but when I ask you for an example, you say you need the requirements, and then when given them, simply, say you want an MY example of what YOUR opinion of a powerful item would be.

Yeah, I could have boiled that down to two sentences:
Gauss, Drachasor, Rynjin... give your own example of what the most powerful item you believe is expected to be acquired and then stand back. Give us a chance to show you what's possible, if you aren't convinced that's fine, but it will give a common ground baseline for others to review and decide.


"I'm not able to actually make my own argument, so I want you to make my argument for me and then agree that I'm right."

Yeah that's gonna happen.

Maybe the fact that you can't find any examples of brokenness might be a hint that this isn't as broken as you think?


Roberta Yang wrote:

"I'm not able to actually make my own argument, so I want you to make my argument for me and then agree that I'm right."

Yeah that's gonna happen.

That is CLEARLY NOT the example. I have ignored your posting for 4 pages with the obvious flaming sarcasm.

Asking them for an example of what the believe is an acceptable powerful item is not asking them to prove that a more powerful item than they expect can be made. It's the very basis of asking for common ground.

It is not proving my point that an item is too powerful if they say, this is the most powerful one that is acceptable. If I then do point out one that may be vastly or even a little more powerful that would prove my point.


Pizza Lord, this is your thread and your case to prove.

So far, for this entire thread it has been difficult to even understand what you write due to your writing style of "wall of text".

In any case, I have not really seen you post any concrete examples showing which items you feel is a problem. Perhaps they were lost in your "wall of text" posts. If you can show an item that proves your case please do, otherwise you have completely failed to prove anything other than your ability to generate walls of text (perhaps that should be a spell?).


I have said before that it is a fallacy to propose that you just dump all your money into one big item.

IT IS NOT WORTH IT EVER.

Consider, Pizza Lord, if the very first level you could dump your money into it, you got what you consider to be arguably the best weapon in the game, the Luck Blade. Let's say you craft it, so it is half off.

Let's be generous and let you have an extra 1k so you can get it at 12th level.

Do you think that's a good idea?


No, I see what you're saying-I used to edit backgrounds for a large LARP- but I don't see where the +5 becomes an issue, at least not enough to impact a game reasonably.

If, hypothetically, it were to be removed, it would make crafting much harder, and less likely to be pursued, barring a party of casters, all with separate repertoires to fulfill the casting requirements.

I have played a crafter caster who didn't use the +5 requirement, but instead used creative applications of spells already upon her list. It can be done to justify nearly every type of item-but still requires a rather varied list. It was a self imposed penalty based upon a concept.

I have also played a crafter who made liberal use of the +5 rule, but this was not a main crafter character.

I am thinking of making another crafter simply because I enjoy the micromanaging mini game of item crafting.

That being said-I understand the limitations of my group, my DM (I'm married to him-so it helps), and generally the campaign he's trying to provide. I usually ask his permission and do up the numbers before I create an item.

Ideally the use or abuse of the +5 is entirely dependant upon the people you have playing in your game-much like most things.

I do not think removing the +5 would be viable if only for one basic point.

Having the +5 means that the DM can be less concerned about the loot he or she gives out. It releases some of the pressure of determining whether the party has what they need per encounter. In proper use, it's a boon on both sides of the table.

Yes, some people will abuse it, but even without the +5 some people will abuse crafting.

I cannot agree that-in the case of sorcerers and Oracles (who would be worst hit by this)- you must commit spells known to being able to make items, because it would make those characters much closer to NPCs than viable PCs. It would restrict their playtime when not crafting, and so, further discourage use of item crafting.

Removing the +5 puts item crafting back to where it was, with a very small step up. It would be usable only by high level characters-who already have the resources and abilities to abuse the system without items if need be. Lower levels characters, as it stands now, benefit the most from item crafting, and it is when characters are at their most fragile that they need a bit of an edge to take the tension off the DM for possible TPKs by accident.

There is a rational purpose behind item crafting and the +5 rule.

It has far more benefit to a game than detractions, and while I understand your concerns, I believe you have a very different mindset regarding item creation than a number.

Being someone who was introduced in box set I do understand, but your (presumed-pardon me if I am wrong) belief that items should be difficult to create and take a substantial effort by the PCs beyond what they already are is a product of previous editions. Pathfinder is not a previous edition, and it's distinctions are what make it so very popular.

Feel free to houserule, and even put in restrictions if you're DMing-as people here have stated, the availability of crafting is purely within DM control. Asking the entire system to be revised because you see problems is a bit much.

Yes, it can be abused, noone doubts that. The entire system is ripe for abuse. The only way to avoid that is to play with people you enjoy, and engage in a social contract that you're all there to have fun. If someone still wantonly abuses something to the point it causes you stress, you know not to invite them to return, and you are free (if you are the DM) to ask them not to return.

The rules do not keep a player from abusing the system. The DM does. The Social Contract of gamer to gamer does. The rules cannot do that.

I would suggest if you wish to make item crafting less prevalent, either do not allow it, restrict it, ask the players to submit item suggestions for approval, or add in houserules that require unusual components (as per 2nd edition) or merely remove the +5 altogether.

You can have ambushes happen while someone is crafting, you can have encounters that require their attention so much that there is no time.

TL:DR

The problem isn't the +5 rule, it's that I believe you may be looking at the rule from a different mindset-one that has come and gone before.

Item crafting, in fact, the entire game, isn't policed by the rules so much as the agreement between your players and you what is acceptable and fun. If you're not enjoying it, you can change that.

Asking that a +5 rule be revised for your particular viewpoint is unreasonable.

Ultimately you have control over your game. Never forget that. That however, does not give you control over anyone else's game. Do what you will at your table, noone can stop you.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

As a connoisseur of fine sarcasm, I heartily approve of this thread. Some of the best sarcastic replies I have seen in a long time.

Liberty's Edge

Pizza Lord wrote:
Gauss wrote:
Since you appear to be unwilling to use the same starting point most everyone else (and the game system) uses it appears we are at cross purposes and have nothing to discuss.

That is untrue. I have spent a lot of time and effort and made effort to give examples. Then just because someone agrees, they ignore the starting point just say, 'That's not powerful." You want me to give you a common ground? I asked very simply what the most powerful item your 8th0level caster could create. I used Rynjin's suggestion of half-WBL based treasure as a fair evaluation in deference to him, and even gave an example.

The only person who responded to it was Drachasor and he couldn't even think of an example so we could look and see if something better could be made. His only idea of a single item was...'Uhhh...two items.... that together are better than one...'

You want me to show you that an more powerful item than you expect can be made? Then be fair to me, you just tell me, using your own build as in the example asked earlier, the most powerful item you think you can get.

Then I can say 'Well, how about this?" "Or, actually you'd have...this." Then at least other people reading can go.... "Well, he has a point, that really is significantly more powerful than what Gauss thought was possible." or "maybe they say, well, it's not." I can't gauge what every single person thinks is too powerful.

You tell me an item can't get into someone's hands before it's supposed to, prove it. You tell me the best item, of your very own determination, that you think could be made and THEN the challenge is on me. Name it. Go back and read the example, you have a lot of carte blanche.

I'm tired of saying something can be made, and being told because it take 30 days it's not possible, then when shown that it is possible, being accused of ignoring the limit or saying that 30 days equal 'Unlimited craft time'. It's the same when someone declares that a character wouldn't have enough money, and...

Ok, we have 16.500 gp to craft.

That is a weapon with a enhancement total equal to +4, in most campaign a decent choice would be a +1 holy weapon with some extra power like keen or bane. Honestly the hard part would be choosing the extra +1 power, the efficiency of what you choose would be very campaign dependent.

Ring of protection +4, a very powerful item for a 8th level character, but having a +1 ring, +1 amulet of natural armor, +1 to AC ioun stone and a +1 armor would get the same result for way less.

A bit above budget, but a metamagic rod of quickening, lesser. (but craft rod require a CL of 9)

Very powerful, but not something in which I would sink half of my WBL: Cauldron of Resurrection

- * -

The problem in your challenge is that most of the time it would be way better to purchase or craft several minor items that work and stack together instead of crafting a single big item.

Take the weapon example. In most campaign a +1 holy weapon is a good weapon for a 8th level character. If you buy it from a merchant it will cost more than half of your WBL, probably putting you at a disadvantage in some other field.
If you craft it it is 2/7 of your WBL, a very manageable sum.

The best items, if we stick to a item that cost 16.500 gp to craft are non standard items that allow you to take together the benefits of several items usually located in the same body location.

As an example a fighter could make a belt that give him +4 to strength, +2 to dexterity, +2 to constitution for 14.000 gp. It would be a more powerful version of a Belt of physical perfection +2. Overpowered? No.
better than what you can find in a store or as loot? Yes.


Diego Rossi wrote:

Ok, we have 16.500 gp to craft.

That is a weapon with a enhancement total equal to +4, in most campaign a decent choice would be a +1 holy weapon with some extra power like keen or bane. Honestly the hard part would be choosing the extra +1 power, the efficiency of what you choose would be very campaign dependent.

Ring of protection +4, a very powerful item for a 8th level character, but having a +1 ring, +1 amulet of natural armor, +1 to AC ioun stone and a +1 armor would get the same result for way less.

A bit above budget, but a metamagic rod of quickening, lesser. (but craft rod require a CL of 9)

Okay, off my work-shift now and I can rejoin the forums. I'll see what I can offer about your examples. It's understood that there's leeway and some items will be better than others in different scenarios. I'm not here to put you in a *Gotcha* situation, only to show that what you think is an item that would be a strain for a character to get isn't as tough as initially thought.

As for the case of saying, a +4 item isn't powerful because a +2 item and +2 stat booster would amount to the same bonus isn't the point. The item isn't less powerful. And also, you have to take into account that at a reasonable progression a character will already have those +2 items, so it isn't a choice of 'make this 1 thing instead of 3 little things.' The little things will already be available. An 8th-level character will believably have a +2 stat boost or a +2 AC (something).

I will see what I can come up with, thanks for giving me a starting point.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not true Pizza.
If you are using half of your budget for something, there are good chances that you will fall behind in some other field.

Let's define the equipment of a 8th level fighter with craft wondrous items that has crafted a total of 16.500 gp of items:
Total budget 33.000 gp

Guy 1:

Crafted +4 amulet of natural armor = 16.000 gp
Ring +1 = 2.000 gp
+2 sword = 8.000 gp
cloak +2 = 4.000 gp
armor +1 = 1.000 gp
shield +1 = 1.000 gp
mundane/alchemical equipment plus base cost of the masterwork armor, shield and weapon = 1.000 gp

total 33.000 gp

+7 to AC, +2 to attack/damage, +2 to saves

Guy 2:

Crafted +2 amulet of natural armor = 4.000 gp
crafted cloak +2 = 2.000 gp
Crafted belt of strength, dexterity
and constitution +2 = 8.000 gp

Ring +2 = 8.000 gp
+2 sword = 8.000 gp
armor +1 = 1.000 gp
shield +1 = 1.000 gp
mundane/alchemical equipment plus base cost of the masterwork armor, shield and weapon = 1.000 gp

total 33.000 gp

+6 to AC, +2 to attack/damage, +2 to saves plus
+1 to hit/damage for the extra strength, +1 to reflex saves, AC and initiative for the extra dexterity, + 1 hp/level and +1 to fortitude saves for the extra constitution,

for a total of
+7 to AC, +3 to attack/damage, +2 to 1 save, +3 to the other two, 8 extra hp, +1 to all strength, dexterity and constitution based skill, and ability check, initiative included.

You lose 1 point of AC it you are surprised, so an alternate

Guy 3:

Crafted +2 amulet of natural armor = 4.000 gp
Crafted Dusty rose ioun stone+1 insight bonus to AC = 2.500
crafted cloak +2 = 2.000 gp
Crafted belt of strength and constitution +2 = 5.000 gp
Crafted silversheen, elixir of vision x2, elixir of hiding, total = 500 gp

Ring +2 = 8.000 gp
+2 sword = 8.000 gp
armor +1 = 1.000 gp
shield +1 = 1.000 gp
mundane/alchemical equipment plus base cost of the masterwork armor, shield and weapon = 1.000 gp

total 33.000 gp

+7 to AC, +3 to attack/damage, +2 to saves, +3 for fortitude saves, +1 to initiative for the extra dexterity, + 1 hp/level, +1 to the strength and constitution based skill and checks and some consumable as utility.

The big item rarely is an advantage against multiple cumulative items.

Weapons are an exceptions as if they increase the straight +x bonus they get to bypass harder and harder Damage Reduction.


I think MI crafting is one of Pathfinder's "popcorn topics."


Srial wrote:

I may be in the minority of this interpretation, but this isn't really a problem if you apply the rule as written strictly. Emphasis mine.

Magic Item creation Rules wrote:
Note that all items have prerequisites in their descriptions. These prerequisites must be met for the item to be created. Most of the time, they take the form of spells that must be known by the item's creator (although access through another magic item or spellcaster is allowed). The DC to create a magic item increases by +5 for each prerequisite the caster does not meet.

"The prerequisites MUST be met for the item to be created." Period. That's not even a debatable sentence. No one can argue that sentence is unclear.

The next sentence says that most of the time the spells come from the caster, but access through other magic items or spellcasters is allowed.

The +5 DC rule says then says. The dC to create increases by +5 for each prereq the CASTER does not meet. It doesn't say that prereq doesn't need to be met in exchange for +5 dc.

I think it's totally in order to say that in order to make a luckblade with one wish, you need a wish spell. You can either cast it yourself, and take no DC penalty, or you can get it from a magic item or friendly spellcaster in which case you can still make the item, but at a +5 DC pentalty.

So sure, a 7th level crafter can make a luckblade with 1 wish as long as he expends a wish from a magic item (in which case...why bother?), or from a friendly source probably costing 25k as usual or some other trick through some monster's SLA probably.

But...people will say...there's a FAQ on this.:

Pathfinder FAQ wrote:


Crafting and Bypassing Requirements: What crafting requirements can you bypass by adding +5 to the DC of your Spellcraft check?

As presented on page 549 of the Core Rulebook, there are no limitations other than (1) you have to have the item creation feat, and (2) you cannot create potions, spell-trigger, or spell-completion magic items

...

This is how I run it in my game. Not sure if it's a house rule or a valid interpretation, don't really care.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Poor Bruno Battlehammer, friend of Drizzt, under your ideas he could have never made Wulfgar's Hammer.


Diego Rossi wrote:

Not true Pizza.

If you are using half of your budget for something, there are good chances that you will fall behind in some other field.

Let's define the equipment of a 8th level fighter with craft wondrous items that has crafted a total of 16.500 gp of items:
Total budget 33.000 gp
...

Guy 2:

Crafted +2 amulet of natural armor = 4.000 gp
crafted cloak +2 = 2.000 gp
Crafted belt of strength, dexterity
and constitution +2 = 8.000 gp

Ring +2 = 8.000 gp
+2 sword = 8.000 gp
armor +1 = 1.000 gp
shield +1 = 1.000 gp
mundane/alchemical equipment plus base cost of the masterwork armor, shield and weapon = 1.000 gp

total 33.000 gp

+6 to AC, +2 to attack/damage, +2 to saves plus
+1 to hit/damage for the extra strength, +1 to reflex saves, AC and initiative for the extra dexterity, + 1 hp/level and +1 to fortitude saves for the extra constitution,

for a total of
+7 to AC, +3 to attack/damage, +2 to 1 save, +3 to the other two, 8 extra hp, +1 to all strength, dexterity and constitution based skill, and ability check, initiative included.

I would note that given the exponential rise in item costs, you'll find the gains to be made by item crafting aren't as great as they might first appear. Let's assume they keep HALF the stuff (which I think is correct within the first order). That stuff costs as much as crafted items (crafting with gold from sold items just let's you convert them at no loss).

If you found Xk worth of stuff. You'll keep half and craft the other half. So really, we're comparing someone with 16.5k of found stuff + 8.25k of bought or crafted stuff. In other words, crafting doesn't give you twice as much gold worth of stuff, but just 33% more (in this case 24.75 vs. 33k). Big difference.

Of course, you took this into account already more or less, with half the items crafted (which is kind of the max disparity in most cases, imho). Well, 14k in guy #2. Let's reduce those 14k of items down to just 7k of items.

Bought +1 amulet of natural armor = 2k gp (-2k)
Bought Cloak +1 = 1k gp (-1k)
Bought belt of one stat + = 4k gp (-4k)
Ring +2 = 8k gp
+2 sword = 8k gp
armor +1 = 1k gp
shield +1 = 1k gp
mundane/alchemical equipment plus base cost of the masterwork armor, shield and weapon = 1k gp

So, the crafted guy has +1 to all saves, +1 nat armor, and +2 to say...strength and con. That IS pretty good (and more an argument on how Craft Wondrous Items is REAAAALY good), but it isn't THAT massive a difference. Largely it amounts to some +1 differences on rolls. Nice, but not game-breaking.

Please note though, that if we were looking at Craft Arms and Armor then the difference would be much smaller. Same with the other crafting feats. Wondrous is where the biggest difference lies.

If this is a major concern, you might allow trading in magical items for full credit towards something similar (or a reduced fee). Say a +1 Longsword being traded for a +1 Scimitar at no or little cost (rather than a 1k cost). That would even out crafting a bit.

So while crafting can be powerful (and converting items is nice for stuff you don't want), it isn't doubling wealth. Not close to it. And since the cost of items increases exponentially, the difference isn't as great mechanically as you might think.


Titania, the Summer Queen wrote:
Poor Bruno Battlehammer, friend of Drizzt, under your ideas he could have never made Wulfgar's Hammer.

Not true at all... Another case of someone just tossing an off-hand comment without any real thought just for the purpose of being glib. Sarcasm is fine, I use it myself all the time, but sarcasm for sarcasm's sake is a pointless waste of time here and an insult to everyone who actually puts thought into the discussion, whichever side their on.

Though, Aegis-Fang's actual stats might be a bit debatable. It matches a customized dwarven throwing hammer with some modifications.

Dwarven Thrower:
Dwarven Thrower wrote:

Aura moderate evocation; CL 10th Slot none; Price 60,312 gp; Weight 5 lbs.

This weapon functions as a +2 warhammer in the hands of most users. Yet in the hands of a dwarf, the warhammer gains an additional +1 enhancement bonus (for a total enhancement bonus of +3) and gains the returning special ability. It can be hurled with a 30-foot range increment. When hurled, a dwarven thrower deals an extra 2d8 points of damage against creatures of the giant subtype or an extra 1d8 points of damage against any other target.
Requirements Craft Magic Arms and Armor, creator must be a dwarf of at least 10th level; Cost 30,312 gp

Aegis-Fang description:
FR wiki wrote:

It was made from mithral (the head) and adamantite (the shaft), with a diamond coating magically adhered after the forging. Its head was engraved with magical inscriptions, which were covered by the symbols of the dwarven gods Dumathoin, Moradin, and Clangeddin Silverbeard.

It was a large and heavy warhammer, perfectly balanced for Wulfgar. Any person not over 6'5" (1.9 m) and without considerable strength would have a hard time wielding it properly. It was attuned to its wielder and would magically return to their hand upon telepathic command.

It probably functions as a mithril weapon (head) but may defend against damage from sunder and such as adamantine (shaft), that's debatable but seems fair. The material costs for adamantine, mithril, diamond dust, etc aren't part of the magical crafting process however.

Assuming Aegis-Fang is a maul with +3 Enhancement, then adding +1 enhancement, another +1 for the returning ability, and another +1 for the throwing ability (unlike the warhammer a maul isn't a throwing weapon) when wielded by someone meeting the Str requirement, you get a +6 magical weapon equivalent. Worth 72,000 gold pieces or 36,000 gold pieces to craft.

With reasonable differences of opinions for an increase to cost based on some other power and a reduction in cost for a wielder requirement, based on Wulfgar's strength and stature which replaces the 'in the hands of a dwarf' of a typical dwarven thrower since it was made for Wulfgar, you see it could be created by someone possibly at 10th, but definitely at 11th-level.

Bruenor Battlehammer is typically stated at 13th level, give or take 1 or two levels for when he actually crafted the weapon would be 11th, within the cost range. He couldn't bypass the CL requirement for a +4 weapon if only 11 [by what you are claiming is my rules] but at 12th could, assuming it is functionally a +4 weapon, If it was actually +2 (+3 in Wulfgar's hands) he could do it at 9th [by what you say is my rules].

Aside from that... He's the king of a friggin' dwarven clan. Do you know what that means? It means, despite the limitations you think and say, "He could never do that because it costs too much. A character of that level doesn't have that much funding, unless he's cheating." He actually can! He does! You've seen it.

Even with the additional spell requirements this custom maul would have over a typical dwarven thrower, there are numerous clerics and casters available to assist in the spell requirement portions assuming he doesn't ignore them, they're referenced constantly.

Finally. anyone with even the most simple of search checks could look and find a reason for it to be possible.

Quote:

"If yer talent for the craft is keen," his father had said, "and ye're lucky enough to live long and feel the strength of the earth, ye'll find a special day. A special blessin' - some would say a curse - has been placed upon our people, for once, and only once, the very best of our smiths may craft a weapon of their choosing that outdoes any work they'd ever done. Be wary of that day, son, for ye'll put a great deal of yerself into that weapon. Ye'll never match its perfection in yer life again and, knowing this, ye'll lose a lot of the craftsman's desire that drives the swing of yer hammer. Ye may find an empty life after yer day, but if yer good as yer line says ye'll be, ye'll have crafted a weapon of legend that will live on long after yer bones are dust. "

- excerpt from The Crystal Shard

That's right. A PC could be playing a Battlehammer dwarf in your campaign and point out that, because you obviously follow the rules, there should be some ability of his character that lets him craft a weapon, a powerful weapon... even if only once in their lifetime. It's your call at what point he's skilled enough to qualify (8 ranks, 10 ranks) really up to you, but flippantly tossing out that it can't be done is FLAT OUT WRONG.

Well, uhhh...that's a special character and a special case and...:
And it was all your choice to point it out thinking everybody here would be too ignorant to know better. Give us some credit.


Gauss, still working on the examples from you. I haven't forgotten. This is a tough one.


Take your time, Im not going anywhere. :)


Actually Pizza Lord, Bruenor does not take aid from a spellcaster. The crafting of Aegis-Fang is described in the book and is basically him working alone in a shed.

IIRC, he does use a scroll however.


It says that you can bypass magic item requirements, does that include the gold cost?

151 to 196 of 196 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Ignoring requirements for Magic Item crafting All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion