In advance, this is more rant than question on a rule, which is why I put it here. I don't like the rules changes for crafting that lets someone ignore CL or certain requirements, most especially access to spells required. I DO like the Master Craftsman feat they added. It lets skilled crafters create items without having to become spell-casting classes. I just think having to either learn the spell or find someone who can cast it is not really that hard unless it's a rare spell or class... and then it should be hard to get, because it's a rare spell, not something you can fake with a +5 check. I can't ask for a Spellcraft check in combat at DC 10 +spell level +5 to just cast a spell I don't know.
Alright, I might be wrong here. I don't typically play Pathfinder so skills might throw me for a loop and feat gains might trip me up as well. Correct me if I am wrong, but:
Assuming a reasonably-focused crafting character at 5th level will have 5 ranks of Craft (weaponsmith). This means he can take Master Craftsman at 5th-level. His next feat comes at 7th? He can take Craft Magical Arms and Armor.
Now he has 7 ranks in Craft skill, likely a +4 for intelligence, +2 for Master Craftsman, with another +3 because he has a rank in Craft which is a class skill. So he has +16 to Craft without a doubt. Possibly +3 for Skill Focus, +2 if a gnome, +1 for an Intelligence booster, +2 masterwork tools. So not unreasonably a +20 to Craft at 7th-level and actually +23 is not hard to get.
If this 7th level character wants to craft a Luckblade with 1 wish (price: 62,360, cost: 43,835), he needs Craft Arms and Armor, which he has. Other than that, he spends 63 days, makes a DC 27 check [17 + 5 (for not having wish) + 5 (for not being CL 17, which is a special requirement for this weapon). That's not a check he can believably fail even assuming you aren't letting him just Take 10. I know, that's a lot of gold. We all know that's not really an obstacle and a party could have been saving and planning for these for many levels.
A 17th-level crafter who knows the wish spell only needs a DC 17 check instead DC 27. He can add +5 to accelerate his crafting time, finishing in 32 days. But that's about all he seems to get. He's at DC 22 on his check, the 7th-level guy's at DC 27. That extra +5 DC of difference between him and Level 7 guy means nothing really and, in fact, the 7th level character can do the same thing, pushing his DC to 32 for accelerating and still only risking failure if he can't Take 10, definitely not failing by 10th-level when his Skill Focus bonus doubles. (10 ranks, +2 Master Craftsman, +3 Class skill, +6 Skill Focus, +4 Int, +2 masterwork tools. With a racial bonus to the craft check or an item increasing Int, easily a +30.) Again, assuming you're not letting him Take 10. So it doesn't matter if at 17th-level you're swinging a +40 skill check, it's moot.
Just in case I'm missing something or somehow the fact that it's a non-caster and they had to take an extra feat (Master Craftsman) is suppose to balance out getting wishes easily by 10th-level, earlier with slim chances of failure but not even catastrophic cursed item failure, I'm going to try another example for clarity.
A 5th-level caster just takes Craft Magic Arms and Armor. He can, reasonably and by the rules (we all know gold cost is only a small barrier to someone who plans or has teammates helping) can craft a Luckblade just as easily as the 10th-level guy (DC 27). All for the same cost and effort as above. In fact, assuming a reasonable +17 modifier range or more (5 ranks, +4 Int, +3 for a rank in a class skill, +2 for masterwork tools, maybe a +2 if a gnome or a +3 for Skill Focus) he can't fail if you let him Take 10, which most people seem to allow unless he goes out adventuring. Only if he tries to accelerate the crafting, pushing the DC to a 32 does he have a chance at failing. That's assuming he didn't take Master Craftsman just for another +2. Instead, he probably took Craft Wondrous Item at 3rd, and has already crafted an Intelligence booster and an item granting skill check bonuses for himself.
Am I mistaken here that this should set off a warning? According to this rule, the guy who's not 'cheating' on the requirements actually still loses his spell for 63 days . Since the other guy isn't using a 9th-slot and doesn't even have one, he's unaffected.
If these two, supposedly balanced and equally-affected characters want to go adventuring (it just cuts their hours put into work for that day, which means little at a 63 day project), Why is it the guy who actually made the effort to meet the requirements gets shafted and doesn't get access to his 9th-level spell. As far as I can tell, the guy cutting corners doesn't lose a spell slot. He's not down a potentially critical ability while the other guy is.
Honestly, a guy adventuring at 17th-level probably needs his spell slot and is at way more risk than a guy adventuring at 6th-level would be without one 3rd-level spell (that being his highest level). The guy who has all the feats, spells, requirements, caster levels... HE is the one that suffers 63+ days without his most powerful spells available! And somehow, people are going to tell you that because the other guy has +5 to a DC check he will make in two months, which he already can't fail (he might have even gone up 2 or 3 levels while out adventuring with no penalty in that time!) is balanced, or that this system does not backhandedly slap the people that meet the requirements in the face?
I get it, the 17th-level guy should just add +5 to his own DC and ignore the prerequisite and not lose a spell slot, just like the guy who doesn't have the spell slot to lose. That's not the point, why have requirements at all then? When a system pays off people for NOT putting time and effort into it and hindering those that do, that's not a good system.
The caster who took the Cleave feat so he could be the guy crafting a special weapon had to give another feat up and work through the levels with that. The caster who had to use a known spell slot to learn Magic Circle vs Evil and hold off on having Scorching Ray put his time in. The player that had to play a fruity elf and suffer through 12 levels of... being a elf, just so he could make his party cloaks and some quiet shoes does not deserve to be punished because they actually know the requirements.
So obviously this isn't about a Luckblade by itself, trying to point out that it's some kind of exception isn't going to convince me, that's just an example I thought of within 2 minutes of hearing about this and I am sure this could be broken much further.
Doesn't this trivialize working towards creating stronger items? This means that right as soon as a crafting feat can be taken, it allows access to what may arguably be one of the most powerful and rare items in the game (I said arguably, but you try and have one roll up randomly in a treasure. First you need to have a potential treasure cache worth at least 40,000 gp and take that out of what will be found before even rolling on the Major chart.)
Thank you for letting me vent that, I just can't believe when people tell me that it's a fair system because there's a +5 DC modifier in exchange for getting rid of the foundation, flaws though it may have had, that was in place for regulating magic item crafting. Am I really just seeing ghosts? I mean, they removed XP penalties, so that doesn't restrict anything, now CL is a 'guideline'? Requirements are optional?
The rules do call for cursed items on failed checks, but only the most obtuse or bad-luck-pressing buffoon could ever fail without really trying let alone fail enough to ever get a cursed item and that's with a right-out-of-the-gate whelpling creating one of the best items (granted not one with the most requirements but that's the point, it's not a balanced system that takes into account actual power. It's not any harder to create a Luckblade with 17 wishes than one with 3. There's still just one requirement: Wish, and if it did actually require multiple wishes the guy who actually could cast wish would be even more screwed by losing even more spell slots for two months.
There needs to be some restriction and just requiring the crafting feat is not it. Keeping the actual spell required to be present was at least something, "Oh no, I can't find someone with Owl's Wisdom! I can't make an item... oh wait... yes I can... or I can get a scroll, or I can get a wand, and if I still can't use it one person in the party can or at the very least, if I am even the most pitiful player in the world and can't get another PC to cast the spell I could invest in Use Magic Device because that's what it's for in the worst case scenario.
Have I missed a ruling somewhere? It's possible, I've just been reading the SRDs and might have misinterpreted everything. If so, hopefully my embarrassment will enlighten and help someone else.
I don't see how paying 40k is getting wishes "easy" by level 10, with a hyperspecialized character like the non-caster you mentioned. That's about 2/3 the WBL for a character, that has also invested two or three feats, an 18 intelligence (for a non-caster) and seven skill ranks into it. To get what? A +1 inherent bonus to strength?
I actually LOVE that you can skip requirements - so much that it's a large part of the casting system in my world, it's the main method with which low-level casters can get of some nasty effects, through long "crafting" rituals.
I love the fact that a 3rd level caster, say a local cultist leader, can use her magical expertise to craft a Crystal Ball for scrying, if she has the funds for it, even if she isn't powerful enough to just cast is as a spell yet.
A thought regarding knowing a spell, the way I prefer to see it is this:
It should be possible to enchant an item with a spell that you don't know, but COULD cast if you did. For example, a Sorcerer with a spell of a spell that is on the Sorcerer spell list and a level that the character is able to cast (i.e. can cast 3rd level spells, but does not know fireball). For a Cleric or Druid, they already know all of their spells on their list by spell level, so this is not an issue. For a wizard, get a scroll and learn the spell; but this should be an option open for Wizards, Magi, Sorcerers, and Oracles. But the key here is if you COULD cast it if you knew the spell; you cannot make items that have spells that are not on your spell list.
Otherwise I agree with your ideas. I do not like that requirements can be ignored, but I feel that the ability to waive a spell should be as I mentioned above (on you spell list and a spell level you can cast).
This might come off as a bit ranty as well, in the opposite direction;
Gold & time is a bigger inhibitor than the actual craft DCs. 40 000 for a single wish is pretty expensive, and more than most folks would be willing to spend. And the sheer time to craft it also makes it inconvenient for any adventuring party.
There are some items that can have silly high potential craft DCs, despite a low cost. This "method" allows non-standard casters (or master craftsmen as you demonstrated) to do something crafting-wise (like a magus, or a sorcerer) who dont have the spell list/spellbook flexibility of a wizard.
I also believe you're over-estimating the "ease" it is to get the spell "somehow"; wands & scrolls are spent each day (and thus add to your crafting cost), any "cooperative" crafter has to spend THE ENTIRE DURATION with you for crafting (also adding to the cost to hire them).
I dont really have any significant problems; wizards already have it VERY good, so I dont mind taking one of their usual toys (crafting magical items), and allowing others to use it.
In any case, you can set any requirements you want for the crafting; like Ilja, I find it nice that lower level crafters can take time & money to create something cool.
Thinking about this got my mind to question... has anybody ever come up with rules that define a difference between crafting Arcane items (enchanting) and Divine items (blessing/consecrating)? I could see there be some variation between the two. Arcane would need special materials (be more costly) while Divine might need more purification time and/or rituals (cost less, but take more time).
It's not 40k for a wish, it's 32,650 gp. which is the difference in cost between a Luckblade (0) and a Luckblade (1) Then, when you realize it costs a 17th-level caster 25,000 gp. to get a wish what you really have is only a 7,650 gp. additional cost to give a 5th-level character access to wish. every 32 days, or 16 days at accelerated crafting. Even having to craft, that's still allowing reasonably easy access to what amounts to an item granting 1 wish a month more likely 2 wishes a month with minor sacrifice. You know what items typically grant a wish twice a month? Artifact level plot devices which resemble large near-immovable rocks and usually grant the spell only once a year, during the solstice, to the ruler of the kingdom to use to benefit his people or in dire need, with the sacrifice of a virgin (maybe the last one is optional, but probably some sacrifice or offering of somekind).
You think a +5 DC and a 7,650 gp. penalty for access to the most powerful spell in the game 12 levels before its available to anybody else is reasonable? That's your opinion, I have mine, I just can't believe you hand out items like that in your game.
Ilja wrote:
To get what? A +1 inherent bonus to strength?
Noooo, of course not. That would be silly of him, Ilja.
He did that back at 3rd-level when he took Craft Wondrous Item and used it to make each of the tomes and Librams for only 26,000 gp. He was 2 skill points lower then, but since Craft Wondrous Item doesn't have a special prerequisite of CL for enhancement bonus and special abilities like Craft Arms and Armor does, it was actually 5 points easier.
So... no. Using a Luckblade wouldn't stack with the +1 inherent bonuses he already has to every ability.
Quote:
I love the fact that a 3rd level caster, say a local cultist leader, can use her magical expertise to craft a Crystal Ball for scrying, if she has the funds for it, even if she isn't powerful enough to just cast is as a spell yet
A local cult leader. That sounds more like an NPC and if you think its cool for her to have a crystal ball... she has a crystal ball. Whether she has the funds or not. If not, she stole it from someone else, or she inherited it from her mother, or she's a cult leader and all the donations from her cultist let her hire someone to make one.
You have to admit that it sounds pretty silly that your 3rd level cleric could get to make that item, (probably dropping the base DC to CL 7 by using minimum Wizard level, since CL 10 would have trivial benefits only in the case of a dispel) while once he reaches level 9 and actually has access to the scrying spell... he loses access to a spell slot for the entire duration of the creation. You'd agree right?
Roberta Yang wrote:
Clearly the real problem with 3.x/PF is that max-level full-casters get slapped in the face.
That is a slap in the face to anyone who put time and effort into their character. If something does occur during that time which does require his intervention. Not only does he lose crafting time, but he's down in spell power while dealing with it. That by itself isn't bad or unfair, but it is when someone in the exact same situation doesn't have to deal with it because they purposefully avoided having the actual requirements (and it's already pretty understood that the +5 DC is not an issue at all). It has nothing to do with max-level anything. Even looking at the simple example above that was a 9th-level player getting slapped in the face. It could very easily have been a 7th-level wizard. Your idea of it being some payback because you don't like the powers of high-level casters and this is sticking it them is misguided.
Williamoak wrote:
Gold & time is a bigger inhibitor than the actual craft DCs.
Not really, Gold & time can potentially be bigger inhibitors, but there is no uniform way to control the flow of money or available time between various games that allows for a balanced method of magical item creation using these rules. Some campaigns have lots of treasure, some campaigns have lots of downtime between adventures. Even with the same DM, every campaign is different. Even potentially when playing the exact same campaign you've run through before, encounters, treasure, and downtime can vary wildly, depending on luck, different PC skills that made finding secret compartments of treasure you missed the first time easier, better tactics that allowed the defeat of a monster and collection of its loot, or even meta-game knowledge (whether white or black hat).
It's like putting a roleplaying restriction on a PrC or template, like Feral for instance. Hugely under cost for its abilities because they were supposed to have it harder interacting with 'normal' civilization and encounters. Really, most if the time they just got treated like a typical barbarian for RP purposes, there weren't even any social penalties unless it was DM call.
A set craft DC requirement is a valid method (though one that requires a fair DC and has to take into account numerous variable ways that a skill check can be raised. This system fails here by making that the sole hurdle of any consequence without realizing how easy it is to beat the DC of even the most powerful items right of the bat at 3rd level with trivial effort and not even shady tactics or supplemental rules). A requirement for a spell that can only be accessed at certain levels is a requirement that can ensure crafting closer to an appropriate level. A strict Caster Level requirement is probably actually the best way to ensure only a crafter of appropriate level is making an appropriate item for the level. It's like putting a +6 BAB requirement on a PrC. No matter what weirdness someone tries, you aren't getting that until you're 6th-level (unless someone suddenly says in a FAQ that attack bonus is the same as Base Attack Bonus. That's when the balance gets skewed and now you have access to abilities and powers that weren't meant to be available until a later level, often times powers that are overpowered at those levels judging from some PrCs.
Quote:
There are some items that can have silly high potential craft DCs, despite a low cost.
Absolutely, a clear warning light that this system is not balanced.
It's easier for a 3rd-level crafter just taking CWI to make boots of teleport without meeting any requirements (DC 14; Base DC 9 for CL, +5 for not having teleport. No actual CL 'requirement' for crafting this item according to these rules.) than it takes for him to make boots of the winterland without meeting any requirements (DC 18; Base DC 3 (normally 5 but dropped to 3 for minimum caster level of cat's grace, +15 for not having cat's grace, endure elements, or pass without trace. Yes, the boots of teleport would take longer to craft, but adding +5 for acceleration will make it twice as fast at only DC 19. That's 3 teleports per day at 3rd-level. Even a 9th-level wizard that can cast teleport can't do it 3 times a day without some bonus spells from some crazy high ability score. And if he can, that's almost assured to be his whole complement of 5th-level spells.
Please tell me you see the problem with this now that encounters have to be reconfigured and designed based on 3rd-level parties having ready access to teleportation magics. It used to be just flying that was the benchmark for needing to take into account tactics and pit traps and climbing. The rogue's chance to shine by picking locked doors used to get diminished by the caster learning knock. Now the caster learning knock isn't even needed 2 levels earlier because they don't even need to open the door (at least before the rogue still might have had a purpose to check it for traps before the knock spell.
Quote:
wizards already have it VERY good, so I dont mind taking one of their usual toys (crafting magical items)...
Certainly I'll agree that wizards are the predominant crafters of magic items, a bonus feat that can potentially be used for an item creation feat every 5 levels is one of the only special abilities that class gets.
But honestly, other than Scribe Scrolls at 1st-level (which specifically cannot be crafted without the actual spell requirement) they don't get any bonus feats above any other class until 5th-level, which makes them no more or less likely to have Craft Wondrous Item at 3rd-level than any other crafter of their caster level. At 5th, any other caster can also take Craft Magic Arms and Armor meaning a wizard only potentially has 1 Item Crafting feat more than anyone else. And it can only either be Brew Potion (req. CL 3) or Craft Wand (req. CL 5), both of which, like Scribe Scroll, cannot be made unless you have the actual spell requirement.
So you see, this system isn't spreading out any of a wizard's powers to anyone else, it's actually cheapening every one else who wasn't a wizard and had spells and abilities that wizards didn't have access to and as such gave them a place and purpose to become crafters. Now the wizards can make the rare items they couldn't before (without getting your help) and the actual caster with the desired spell loses their ability to use it when they try and do the same!
It sounds good and it looks good on paper. It's like reading the description for a 6th level spell that does 1d6 damage per caster level, max 10d6. That sounds perfectly reasonable and on par with how other spells seem to work, but the truth is... it's never going to be anything other than 10d6 damage, you get it at 11th-level. Unlike this spell example which can merely be embarrassing when noted, this crafting system has actual detrimental consequences.
Quote:
...and allowing others to use it. (Craft magical items)
Nor do I, as I said I have no problem with Magical Craftsman. It is well-laid out and not overpowered. I think it was a shining bulb of inspiration to allow a legendary armorsmith to forge a truly remarkable item. It caps the crafter's CL to his Skill ranks which is the equal of a devoted caster's CL, which means they are on equal footing. A 15th-level bowyer can have 15 skill ranks (15th CL equivalent) and a 15th level wizard is a 15th CL crafter. It's the system that ignores (or allows the ignoring of at no real penalty) requirements that otherwise stop 3rd level players from teleporting more times a day than a character 3 times their level can that is the problem.
Nobody else sees how this backwards approach actually works? It's like the Developers deciding that rogues do just the right amount of damage due to numerous balancing factors, typical weapons used, possible dual-wielding, sneak attacks and that everyone else needs a bump in weapon damage (sorry spell casters). Sure, some rogues might use different tactics, but those are to be considered purposeful roleplaying choice to be less than optimal.
So they declare that now all weapon damage rolls do 1d6 additional damage like sneak attack, but it doesn't stack with sneak attack. So rogue PCs with +2d6 or more sneak attack still do the damage they always did (they weren't nerfed) but everyone else does more, they don't do less. Additionally, all weapon crit weights increase by x1. so sword are now 19-20/x3 and axes do x4. This helps increase the damage for people to the levels the developers want but they don't want rogues getting super-powerful, so while their weapons get heavier crits too (it's only fair)... the damage from crits now overlaps with sneak attack instead of stacking (sneak attack is still not multiplied by crits, just like always). So you still roll the sneak attack damage when applicable, but if the weapon damage from the crit was more you just use that. So rogue who crits with a dagger is only doing an extra 2d4 +str mods (remember daggers are x3 now, his +2d6 sneak attack modifier will still keep him comparable to that in most cases and of course higher level rogues will still do more because they get more d6s. Only if they're using really heavy weapons will their sneak attacks not cause extra damage, only 'the right amount'. So no, rogues weren't weakened, they didn't 'lose' anything and maybe this method does solve the perceived flaw or apparent missing link, but it doesn't really, because of the wording they used and now everyone technically counts as having 1d6 sneak attack as an ability, which now opens up vast numbers of feats and PrCs to classes earlier than intended because someone didn't take the time to think things through.
That's how messed up this system is, not because other classes get to do something, but because they can now do more than the class which focused on an area can do. Straight rogues don't get into the PrCs or feats with a sneak attack requirement any faster, but other classes now can, especially ones that have requirements rogue don't meet easily or at all by devoting themselves, such as BABs access to certain levels of spells. The idea isn't bad, the implementation is unbalanced.
Maybe for item-creation purposes the CL can increase kind of like it is a BAB. So a full caster is 1:1 per level, a Magus and Bard is 3/4 (just use their class BAB actually), and a Paladin or Ranger uses half their level. I do not know what a non-caster should be like, though.
Alternately, Magus and Bard could be half level, and Ranger and Paladin could be 1/4th level. Non-casters doing it through the Craft method that you are talking about could be lower, or be a modifier (so a Magus using Craft could be as a full caster for that craft type). That makes more sense so that even a full caster could go the whole craft method and use it as a bonus to CL. But I am not so sure that these are necessarily good ideas as I have not done the math.
On some level I agree that it shouldn't be easy to craft magical items, and this was one of my initial dislikes in the Pathfinder rules.
On the other hand, these rules have clearly made it more desirable for players to take item creation feats and craft their own items, which is something I like very much to see, and which I rarely/never saw in 3.5.
So, since I don't really see how else to accomplish the latter, I've learned to live with the former :)
The Devs have stated that the DCs are not the intended limits, they want crafting DCs to be 'easy'. The hard part is time and (especially) GOLD. That level 3 (or 5, or 7) caster simply wont have the gold to craft anything with 'wish' in it.
I really do not see a problem with crafting having an easy DC for those who take the proper skills to do so.
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 without meeting their spell prerequisites. So racial requirements, specific spell requirements, math requirements (such as "caster level must be at least three times the enhancement bonus"), and so on, are all subject to the +5 DC rule.
Note, no where in there does it say you can create a magic item without meeting the prerequesities. Just that if you don't, it's still "subject to the +5 dc rule". If you read the "+5 dc rule" to mean that you still require either to cast the spell, or get it from another source with a +5 dc penalty then this is consistant. This FAQ doesn't say you don't still need the wish spell to make the luck blade.
There are some items that can have silly high potential craft DCs, despite a low cost.
Along a similar vein, take Bracers of Armor:
Quote:
Aura moderate conjuration; CL 7th
Slot wrists; Price 1,000 gp (+1), 4,000 gp (+2), 9,000 gp (+3), 16,000 gp (+4), 25,000 gp (+5), 36,000 gp (+6), 49,000 gp (+7), 64,000 gp (+8); Weight 1 lb.
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, mage armor, creator's caster level must be at least two times that of the bonus placed in the bracers, plus any requirements of the armor special abilities; Cost 500 gp (+1), 2,000 gp (+2), 4,500 gp (+3), 8,000 gp (+4), 12,500 gp (+5), 18,000 gp (+6), 24,500 gp (+7), 32,000 gp (+8)
First off, someone yawns, stretches, polishes their brand new Craft Wondrous Item feat merit badge which they just got right now at 3rd level, the earliest possible. They say, "Time to make some magical bracers by ignoring every other requirement!". Ignoring +1 bracers because he actually meets one requirement, he looks at what requirements he needs and how it will affect his Craft DC to make +2 Bracers of armor.
"Hmmm, CL 7? That would be Base DC 7... BUT! Using these rules, I can make it CL 1 because that is the minimum for casting mage armor. So Base DC 1." The only drawback is that dispel targeted on the item has an easier chance to disable it for a couple rounds.
"'Requirement, mage armor' Don't have it. +5 DC, making it DC 6."
"'Requirement, creator's caster level must be at least two times that of the bonus placed in the bracers' That would be 4. I don't meet that caster level, but since instead of putting 'varies' under the CL listing, which would have set this as the Base DC target number, they put it as a flat requirement, so +5 to ignore makes it a DC 11 check to craft +2 Bracers of armor.
Now if instead, he wants to craft +5 Bracers of armor, well that item would require a Craft DC of... 11. That's dropping the flat CL of 7 to 1 for minimum mage armor requirement and adding +10 for not having mage armor or meeting the CL requirement of being level 10.
See the problem, it's also a DC 11 to create +8 bracers of armor or theoretically +200 bracers of armor (yes, when focusing on how this crafting system works they are equally as difficult to craft if only someone wishes to spend the time (and it will definitely be at half speed, cause that's only DC 16. All because of how the system is set up and how FAQ has described where CL is listed and where 'prerequisites' are listed and how they're avoided.
And before someone says this is an oversight or a typo and that the double enhancement bonus CL requirement should be listed under 'CL' and not 'requirements,' even if we set the target DC of +8 bracers of armor to double the bonus that would only be a DC of 16 with a +5 if the caster actually did not have access to mage armor.
Guass wrote:
The Devs have stated that the DCs are not the intended limits, they want crafting DCs to be 'easy'.
If CL requirements were written to be ignored, why did they go to so much trouble, list CL requirements and even add additional requirements specifically naming a required CL if they knew the only real number needed was a +5 instead of just making them a flat 5, or 15 or 25, some level where the power level fits what's to be expected of a character of a certain level?
If they want crafting items to be 'easy' with the only real limitation be gold. Why even have craft checks for failure or a chance at cursed items? The craft check used to determine the success of making a magical item is already completely different than a craft check to make a mundane item. It's one check at the end of a basically set period of time, unlike a time period based on item value that is checked during each day/week/etc. period of work and is reduced accordingly based on skill. In this case, it makes no difference if you have +50 to a skill or +15, as long as it beats a +5 accelerated check. So if skill is trivial, why have it there?
Quote:
The hard part is time and (especially) GOLD. That level 3 (or 5, or 7) caster simply wont have the gold to craft anything with 'wish' in it.
Time is not a valid limitation, some campaigns can have a year of downtime and others can span centuries. That gives a hugely unfair advantage to races like gnomes, dwarves, and elves, who by this system can crank out items over an inhuman period of productively. This is how it actually would work, though by all stories typical long-lived artisans like elves actually spent decades or centuries focusing on creating one masterpiece of surpassing beauty.
Gold fluctuates among characters and campaigns too wildly to be a good limiter. Sometimes one character is carrying all the party's money or loot and they die. Now he's got 4 peoples' loot. Maybe he uses it for resurrections or maybe they make new characters with all new gear. Of course the DM can come in and say, "No no no," even though circumstances fairly dictated and run led to your acquisition of that loot, and it wasn't accidental loot, I actually gave it to you, you can't use it." Yes, a DM could do that, but then you're the DM stopping a player from attempting to make an item that is within the rules, but which you continually refused to just say was against the rules because you thought it would never happen.
In fact, getting off the gold thing, take two equal level crafters, both level 17. They both have the money to make whatever item the other is. They both have the same skill level and that not even with one have to 'specialize' in skill points, he's just put one rank in per level, has a reasonable intellegence score, a +3 for ranks in class skill and MW tools with his usual INT boosting item. Neither is a 'more specialized through skills and feats character so its fair to let them cheat' character. The only difference is that during the process one caster prepares the spells and meets the requirements, while the other does not. We're all supposed to believe that the Developers' intentions here are that the person making the most effort and actually taking the steps required is the one that deserves to be at the disadvantage, and not just a slight disadvantage, but the only one at a disadvantage. The other guy is not missing a single spell slot, is not weakened in any way! You think, with a straight face, you can tell me that adding +5 to a DC is valid marking point, for letting someone cast a free spell that they don't have prepared on a skill check? There is not only no downside to cutting corners, but you suffer if you actually have all the materials you need.
Srial wrote:
I may be in the minority of this interpretation,...
I know what you think you see there. Trust me, I wish it did, but I know it doesn't. Not as the rules stand. It's a good attempt to stop what I feel is a problem with this system, and I do have my own house rules, but I'm not going into specific tweaks of the the system yet, just pointing out what I feel is wrong.
Mostly my problem is with how it backhands people who spent the time and effort to actually craft items and everyone is continually saying that the Developers made it this way purposefully and are avoiding addressing the issue of lost spell levels while those who ignore requirements suffer no such penalties. They just keep saying things like 'Time... and gold...' "Perfectly as intended for someone more powerful and more skilled at something, using all the correct ingredients and procedures to suffer more... err... I mean... it's all fair. +5 DC is insurmountable! (...up until at least... level 3, when you can take the crafting feat."
Your DCs are off by 5. The starting DC is 5+CL, not CL.
You are using examples that include Wish. Any GM that violates WBL so blatantly where level 3 (or 5 or even 7) PCs are crafting items that cast Wish has other issues.
Also, if you check what I said I did not say "It is my opinion that the Devs wanted crafting DCs to be easy." I said they have STATED that the crafting DCs are intended to be easy. Search the forums, you will find them saying it.
SeelyOne, no...the modifier is for each requirement you do not meet. Either you do, or do not meet the level requirement. There is NO wording stating that it is +5 for each level difference.
I'll remind you that it technically does not cost gold to make magic items.
It costs gold to get the potent magical ingredients, needed to make the magic items, from specialists, monster hunters, alchemists and whatnot, and have them delivered from exotic locations. So even if you say that gold is not a barrier, which I definitely do not agree with, especially for non-adventurers, all a big pile of gold will get you, is shiny encumbrance.
"Power lies not in wealth, but in the things it affords you", to quote a certain fictitious vampire.
So while, yes, Slackjaw Joe, the hammerhanded magic item specialist might be very talented, he's gonna have an issue with aquiring dragonbone marrow, an amethyst cut by a blind man, and powdered hydra teeth that have been marinating in mercury and wolfsbane for a full moon, as well as the multitude of other ingredients he might need.
True, gamemasters usually just make it a direct cash for magic items deal, but that is not (I should think) because they think you transmute mammon to magic, but because the game is supposed to be fun, and gathering these items could be tedious.
It does not have to be, it depends on players. Had a campaign get sidetracked for a few weeks once, while my players travelled out to get the components for a particularly powerful magic item. They seemed to enjoy themselves, adventuring into deep forests to get "A branch from a beffudled treant, willingly given", among other ingredients.
Mostly my problem is with how it backhands people who spent the time and effort to actually craft items and everyone is continually saying that the Developers made it this way purposefully and are avoiding addressing the issue of lost spell levels while those who ignore requirements suffer no such penalties.
Ah yes, this game needs to cater more to casters. They are poor, pitifully put upon classes with nothing going for them but item crafting.
*snerk*
And you make mention of "lost spell levels". Are the only item crafters Sorcerers in your world, I wonder? Not to mention the ludicrous idea that learning a spell is a bad thing in the first place. I mean, they're not exactly learning things that are useless here.
And you also make no mention of the person with Master Craftsman needing to "lose Feat levels" because that is a Feat you're not getting back. And Feats are a lot less plentiful than spells are.
And you continue to handwave the time and gold requirement. When the majority of campaigns won't have time for you to spend 60 days loafing about making an item while there's world saving to be done (but the poor, pitiful, put upon caster is so much worse off. After all, he can already halve the time by meeting some of the requirements if he wishes, and use a half-time Demiplane to make it even faster. Poor, poor guys).
Edit: Really, this is a philosophy issue. For ages people cried that they wanted a way to create magic items. 3.X introduced it but that cost XP and so people didn't do it because they did not want to fall behind. However, in 3.X crafting was automatically, 100%, successful. There was ZERO chance of failure.
Pathfinder removed the XP cost but introduced the skill 'tax' with the intent that crafting be made easy if you have the time and gold and were not overreaching. Now there is a 'slight' chance of failure if you overreach.
But, that violates some people's ideal of magic items being 'hard to make or acquire'. They become a regular commodity rather than a rare item. If you want items to be rare or difficult that is what house rules are for.
The only two flaws I really find with the crafting system are:
A) The value for each crafting feat is disproportionate. Ultimate Campaign has tried to address this a bit but I think it falls short. (For those of you who know me to be an advocate of crafting, yes, this is me backing off a bit on that position.)
B) We are still using the 3.X item Caster Level system to determine DCs. The DCs of many 3.X items were completely arbitrary and do not make a lot of sense.
Then, when you realize it costs a 17th-level caster 25,000 gp. to get a wish what you really have is only a 7,650 gp. additional cost to give a 5th-level character access to wish. every 32 days, or 16 days at accelerated crafting.
But really, absolute gold piece price is much less relevant than relative cost compared to wealth. For a 10th level character it costs half their WBL to get a single wish. For a 17th level caster it costs 6% of their wealth. And that's for a PC, who are extremely rich compared to NPC's of similar level.
Quote:
You know what items typically grant a wish twice a month? Artifact level plot devices which resemble large near-immovable rocks and usually grant the spell only once a year, during the solstice, to the ruler of the kingdom to use to benefit his people or in dire need, with the sacrifice of a virgin (maybe the last one is optional, but probably some sacrifice or offering of somekind).
That may be that way in your games. But in Pathfinder, getting a wish is a lot easier regardless of class.
Quote:
You think a +5 DC and a 7,650 gp. penalty for access to the most powerful spell in the game 12 levels before its available to anybody else is reasonable?
It is equally available to anyone that make a similar investment. Or if you just go to a large town and buy the spellcasting service for 26530 gp. Which is even cheaper.
Quote:
That's your opinion, I have mine, I just can't believe you hand out items like that in your game.
I don't. But if a player really really wanted to spend half their wealth, two feats, and a maxed skill to get that +1 inherent bonus to strength, yeah, big deal.
Quote:
He did that back at 3rd-level when he took Craft Wondrous Item and used it to make each of the tomes and Librams for only 26,000 gp.
You do realize they're like 1k cheaper to craft than to buy, right? And more relevant, the first point at which that would be affored would be 9th level for the first single tome, so you could get the second +1 from your wishblade. Oh wonderful, spending all your wealth for a +1 strength modifier! Hah, those poor fools buying +2 swords and +3 armors for the money.
Quote:
So... no. Using a Luckblade wouldn't stack with the +1 inherent bonuses he already has to every ability.
Oh, to every ability, then by WBL she's around level 14 to craft the luckblade to? So at level 14 she can kinda gain nearly the power of a very specific spell a 17th level character can cast by spending all her money at it?
Quote:
You have to admit that it sounds pretty silly that your 3rd level cleric could get to make that item, (probably dropping the base DC to CL 7 by using minimum Wizard level, since CL 10 would have trivial benefits only in the case of a dispel) while once he reaches level 9 and actually has access to the scrying spell... he loses access to a spell slot for the entire duration of the creation. You'd agree right?
The 3rd level PC cleric will have around 3000 gp, give or take. It doesn't have a full cult behind it to be able to afford that. But since we allow crafting use-activated instant-use items of any spell and allowing bypassing the prereq for the same price as potions, she could probably afford a single scrying spell ritual, though that'd cost about 1/4 of all her available resources.
Note, no where in there does it say you can create a magic item without meeting the prerequesities. Just that if you don't, it's still "subject to the +5 dc rule". If you read the "+5 dc rule" to mean that you still require either to cast the spell, or get it from another source with a +5 dc penalty then this is consistant. This FAQ doesn't say you don't still need the wish spell to make the luck blade.
In your interpretation, what is the difference between the skippable prerequisite of Bull's Strength for a Belt of Giant Strength and the unskippable prerequisite of Bull's Strength for a Potion of Bull's Strength? Do you believe that cooperative crafting is impossible for potions, spell-trigger, and spell-completion items?
Pizza Lord wrote:
...he looks at what requirements he needs and how it will affect his Craft DC to make +2 Bracers of armor.
"Hmmm, CL 7? That would be Base DC 7... BUT! Using these rules, I can make it CL 1 because that is the minimum for casting mage armor. So Base DC 1."
Nope. "For potions, scrolls, and wands, the creator can set the caster level of an item at any number high enough to cast the stored spell but not higher than her own caster level. For other magic items, the caster level is determined by the item itself." Between that and conveniently forgetting that the base DC is CL+5, not CL, you've put the DC eleven points below its actual value. For someone who hates the crafting rules so passionately, you don't seem to actually know them very well.
Sorry you're so upset about your 17th-level wizards being underpowered though.
In your interpretation, what is the difference between the skippable prerequisite of Bull's Strength for a Belt of Giant Strength and the unskippable prerequisite of Bull's Strength for a Potion of Bull's Strength? Do you believe that cooperative crafting is impossible for potions, spell-trigger, and spell-completion items?
In my interpretation, neither are skippable. It's simply for the potion the caster must personally be able to cast/invoke/use the spell under their own power. For the belt, they can cast it themselves, or they can use a scroll, or a wand, or get their cousin Joe to cast it for them. If they don't personally cast the spell for the belt, it takes a +5 DC to make it.
I can only guess why they made it this way. My guess is the flavor of an alchemist toiling away making a potion. It makes no sense for the alchemist to make a potion and them someone puts the spell into it. It's an alchemical reaction, not a spell item, per se. It's like someone scribing a scroll and allowing someone else to cast the spell that turns into the writing. It makes no sense. That's purely a guess on my part, I can't tell you what they were thinking when they wrote that.
Gauss wrote:
I went and found one instance of the Devs stating it is intended to be easy:
Sean K Reynolds responding that it is intentional that players are crafting very easily
Heres the specific quote. Emphasis mine.
SKR wrote:
That is intentional--as long as they're picking items for which they meet all the prereqs, they should have no chance of failure.
He doesn't say it should be easy to make magic items and ignore the prereqs.
By the way, I agree with everyone else. It's totally possible I'm wrong and there's some smoking gun hidden rule out there that says you really can ignore all the prereqs with a simple +5 dc check. Even so the cost of making these items makes this a silly argument anyway. I'm just trying to give you a rules based justification for saying it's silly.
Your DCs are off by 5. The starting DC is 5+CL, not CL.
Guass you are absolutely right, 5+. Having to adjust the CLs downward for 'minimum CL for requisite spell' for an initial example messed up a calculation I used as a baseline' this DC makes for a slight difference on the roll, (which likely only matters if Take 10 isn't allowed). At most, it alters the situation by one level or two at best, which exponentially increases WBL range. I don't think that it invalidates the point because a 9th level item becomes a sure thing at 5th instead of 3rd, where it's now only 'highly likely'
Mechanically that base 5 applies to everyone, whether they're ignoring requirements or not, so truthfully it doesn't make it technically easier when comparing two people that are going to have put ranks 1 ranks into a skill per level anyway (caster or noncaster). Thank you for catching that for accuracy purposes though.
Guass wrote:
I went and found one instance of the Devs stating it was intended to be easy:
Okay, this is what is says (bold part indicated by me):
Link wrote:
gordbond wrote:
I feel like my players who are doing crafting are getting it very easy. THere is no chance for them to fail their crafting attempts at all.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
That is intentional--as long as they're picking items for which they meet all the prereqs, they should have no chance of failure.
So it's pretty clear that it is not the Devs intentions for items to be easy once prerequisites start being ignored. Let alone when you start crafting high-level 1-percenter chance magic items with absolutely none if the requirements you can ignore at pretty much the moment you get the ability to craft items and still have no functional chance of failure.
Ilja wrote:
Pizza Lord wrote:
You have to admit that it sounds pretty silly that your 3rd level cleric could get to make that item, (probably dropping the base DC to CL 7 by using minimum Wizard level, since CL 10 would have trivial benefits only in the case of a dispel) while once he reaches level 9 and actually has access to the scrying spell... he loses access to a spell slot for the entire duration of the creation. You'd agree right?
The 3rd level PC cleric will have around 3000 gp, give or take. It doesn't have a full cult behind it to be able to afford that. But since we allow crafting use-activated instant-use items of any spell and allowing bypassing the prereq for the same price as potions, she could probably afford a single scrying spell ritual, though that'd cost about 1/4 of all her available resources.
Oddly, I read the quote that you quoted... I also read the response, and see that it has absolutely nothing to do with answering the question that you quoted. That example of a 3rd level character with an item above 3,000 gp was from an example that you posted, where you said you loved the idea they could do it.
Okay, I'm a little confused maybe, that quote was in response to... this one here right?:
Ilja wrote:
I actually LOVE that you can skip requirements - so much that it's a large part of the casting system in my world, it's the main method with which low-level casters can get of some nasty effects, through long "crafting" rituals.
I love the fact that a 3rd level caster, say a local cultist leader, can use her magical expertise to craft a Crystal Ball for scrying, if she has the funds for it, even if she isn't powerful enough to just cast is as a spell yet.
So your example says that you... DO(?) think that it's okay and you 'love' the fact that a 3rd level PC (cause I said, if it's an NPC, 'who cares?') can have crystal ball which costs 21,000 gp and 21 days to make. But apparently when I point that they can pretty much just as easily make boots of teleportation for the same amount of trouble, that's out of line to you?
Okay, now I could just tell you, 'We've done it then! Crystal ball at 21,000 gp was okay but Boots of teleportation at 24,000 gp. are not okay!' but at the risk of sounding sarcastic, because I can't tell if you're being serious and not just trying some spaghetti buffet approach to your posts where when you say something that's doesn't work you throw some else to see if it sticks. I'm going to try and ask you straight out, 'Are you serious?'
That's how you judge drawing the line!? That's the sweet spot barrier that puts you from disagree to 'love'? It's somewhere in that 3,000 gp range? Okay then! We'll just narrow it down from there! I guess now we just make sure that every campaign has the exact same gold and equipment wealth on every character at 3 and then we can get a mathematical absolute for power levels based on the WBL chart, the +25%+ allowable increase to WBL when item crafting feats are involved and... That's going to be way more accurate than max caster level or number of feats available or even a DC check with a 15% of failure (or 10... or even 6...).
Wait don't forget the time restriction... boots of teleportation would take 3 days longer to make than the crystal ball which you think is acceptable. That's the cut-off point? A 3rd-level character can have magical gear rated for 10th-level Caster Level if it takes 21 days to craft.... but not 24? We can use simple division to get the allowable 'crafting day limitation' on whether a character gets to make an item. 7 days per crafter level, problem solved. Clearly, I didn't see how that prevents abuse. Is that limit applicable if they cut the amount of days in half with a +5 DC check?
"Wow, I can have boots that transcend space and temporal location at 3rd-level! Wait... three and a haaaalf weeks? That's.... that's too powerful for me. I'll stick with making an item that lets me just see the places I could actually be going to. Whew, three weeks for that. I am at the cusp of power for MY level!"
Rynjin wrote:
Ah yes, this game needs to cater more to casters. They are poor, pitifully put upon classes with nothing going for them but item crafting.
*snerk*
Restricting the most powerful magical items in the game to maybe not be available so easily at 6th or even 10th level is in no way catering to casters. In fact, if you read any of the posts here you would see that non-casters making magical items is actually not the problem. At least not to me, the problem is how by, actually having the prerequisites, you open yourself to restrictions which others do not receive.
Quote:
And you make mention of "lost spell levels". Are the only item crafters Sorcerers in your world, I wonder?
First off, this is about the how crafting magical items works by the current system. If it's just my world I can set whatever restrictions I want.
As for lost 'spell levels', that was intended to be read as 'slots'. While in the matter of wizards/sorcerers that wouldn't be an incorrect distinction every other level, for examples in this case it's best to use wizards, because typically sorcerers are a level behind wizards in receiving spell levels. It should be clear to most readers that 'spells available or slots' is what is lost when crafting an item with a spell requirement.
To explain why I didn't waste the time, this is Spoilered so as not to waste everyone's time.:
Looking through the posts, you'll actually see that I try to make this clear but typing the same thing over and over is not only redundant in posts that I think I make long enough already by trying to sincerely and honestly express my views and respond to people, even ones that might be acting snerky or sarcastic (appreciate you making it clear that your response was snerky, by the way), but also boring when I go back and read through them. I try to point out the loss of 'spells available' mostly, but interchange it freely with 'spell slots available.' It's similar to how in rules and examples pronouns like 'he' and 'her' are used interchangeably rather than constantly typing out generic terms like, 'A character, or 'he or she' for space-saving purposes.
So yes, to show that I understand the concept that regardless of whether a caster prepares spells or uses slots, one who meets the requirements for making a spell loses access to them, I alternate using the terms instead of continually having to type things like
'The act of working on the item triggers the prepared spells, making them unavailable for casting during each day of the weapon's creation. (That is, those spell slots are expended from the caster's currently prepared spells, just as if they had been cast. The creator must have prepared the spells to be cast (or must know the spells, in the case of a sorcerer or bard... or oracle, or alchemist, or assassin, or blackguard, or...))
So, thanks for... making all the time saved by not pointing out that this applies to people who don't prepare spells as well as those who do... pointless... by requiring me to explain why it isn't spelled out completely how every single class making an item is potentially affected every single time it comes up. Just gonna Favorite your post there, so others can be directed to it and see what to look at first and get out of the way, and spoiler this so as not to clutter everything with something that doesn't really have anything to do with the situation.
Here's the actual quote, though, in case you think access to the spells is not lost by a crafter who meets the requirements:
Crafting Magic Weapons wrote:
If spells are involved in the prerequisites for making the weapon, the creator must have prepared the spells to be cast (or must know the spells, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) but need not provide any material components or focuses the spells require. The act of working on the weapon triggers the prepared spells, making them unavailable for casting during each day of the weapon's creation. (That is, those spell slots are expended from the caster's currently prepared spells, just as if they had been cast.)
Rynjin wrote:
And you also make no mention of the person with Master Craftsman needing to "lose Feat levels".
Actually... I do... in the very first post. That's actually the very first example used. I think it's pretty clear that I point out the fact that he must take the feat and even the levels he gets them.
Also, pretty sure that the next example points that out again by mentioning how this time the Master Craftsman feat is not required (thought certainly an option for its skill bonus) and how this system is actually MORE powerful for those casters you keep whining about than non-casters.
I would quote those parts, but I think just reading the actual post will probably save more time. Please refrain from flat-out lying in the post, some people might be like you and only skimming posts. They could believe you aren't being deceitful or snerky and take away from what might actually be an insightful discussion to jump on your 'Oh, that wasn't mentioned?!' fictitious bandwagon.
If you like the system, be honest and just say so and why you feel that way. Don't keep spouting off about poor, put-upon classes that you feel are overpowered with 'boo-hoo', flippant responses that bear peripheral bearing on the actual heart of the discussion... or if you must...at least, be as clever sarcastically as I am. I'd like to feel someone is getting something from your posts.
Quote:
...because [Master Craftsman] is a Feat you're not getting back. And Feats are a lot less plentiful than spells are
I think they actually did make feats more plentiful. I think they give them every other level instead of every level divisible by three.
Also, I'm pretty sure that if we look at all the characters with Master Craftsman we'll find that... they most likely do have more feats than spells. I mean, otherwise they'd be spell-casters and wouldn't need to take Master Craftsman. That's basically pretty obvious, unless it's for the +2 skill bonus like I mentioned previously... but then that would also blow to hell your statement of non-casters 'losing a feat'.
And even if we were to assume that because spells are 'more plentiful' is a valid point, it would only be a valid point for reasons why allowing people to ignore them isn't really helpful, since it isn't really hard to find them if you happen to be unable to do it yourself. Is it really that hard to find someone to cast mage armor in your games?
As for never getting the feat back? Maybe, if you quest long and hard enough and make a post about how it can't be done here in the forums, someone will design a set of guidelines for retraining feats that will ease your mind, I might even have some ideas on what I'd tell you, but that's not within the scope of this discussion.
Quote:
And you continue to handwave the time and gold requirement. When the majority of campaigns won't have time for you to spend 60 days loafing about making an item while there's world saving to be done
I am not hand-waving it, I am continually saying that it isn't an enforceable guideline for ensuring magic item to character level power discrepancies.
If your campaign does not allow a character, (any character!) not just casters, time to use their feat reasonably, then that is not the point. Yes, there are times when time is a factor, but everyone, you most especially, would otherwise vilify and 'seriously have to consider ever gaming with that DM again' if you heard that any character in that campaign, even one being an 'over-powered, boo-hoo caster' and not being given a chance to use it.
The truth is, the time is not any way restrictive! It takes just as long for a 17th-level caster to make an item as a 17th-level non-caster, it's not about all-powerful wizards, get it through your skull. The wizard class does not receive any ability that affects their crafting time. They don't even receive a bonus to craft or spellcraft checks that would peripherally, in the tiniest way help them get the +5 DC for accelerated crafting. They actually get less skill points to spend on the skills than almost every other class! These aren't things I should have to point out to you.
Clear it all up for us, Rinjin. How much crafting time does a character with Scribe Scroll get in a campaign between adventures that in any way would be different if they were a 3rd level crafter (not a caster, we all know you would give them less time because if anyone didn't quit in disgust at the constant way you treated them when talking about their characters that they ever did reach the uber-powerful level you keep talking about... it would be so amazing I'd say some 3rd-level crafter had created a Wondrous Item that castmiracle in your campaign and it bled into real life) as opposed to a 5th-level caster. Where can you point out anywhere, that the rules suggest expanding downtime based on character level? It's not, it's all DM call and that is wildly variable requirement. And even if you didn't have 30 days to craft an item. It no longer requires consecutive uninterrupted work. You can go and do other things.
Roberta Yang wrote:
Nope. "For potions, scrolls, and wands, the creator can set the caster level of an item at any number high enough to cast the stored spell but not higher than her own caster level. For other magic items, the caster level is determined by the item itself."
Pretty sure this is actually pointed out in a FAQ as being acceptable.
As for the CL, as Guass mentioned and I replied (yes I take a long time writing and checking my posts) I see the 5 + part, but I disagree about an 11 point discrepancy. If true, I would admitit, but pretty sure as I said, it's more-or-less been allowed.
Serious post for a sec here, what, in plain English, is your actual problem with these rules?
You've stated a few things but none of them make any sense to me, hence the snarkiness.
1.) You think non-casters being able to skip the prerequisites somehow harms the game. Or, more accurately, you think anyone being able to skip the prerequisites somehow harms the people who meet them.
The problem I have with this is that the people who meet the prerequisites are likely not harmed in the slightest. Not taking the +5 to the DC is just icing on the cake. If you're a Wizard, or other prepared Arcane caster, you just got another spell known. That's a good thing. That means you can now choose to use that option, or not, as you wish. More options is never bad.
If you're a prepared Divine caster, you have all of them anyway. All you've given up is a spell slot. During a time when you've probably taken off from adventuring completely to finish your item. No big loss there.
If you're a prepared caster...sorry. You actually gave up something of value. You're part of the reason why the crafting prerequisite ignoring rules exist in the first place. I would think you'd be grateful.
On the Feats are less plentiful than spells thing, just look at the average caster. We'll even use a Spontaneous caster, the Sorcerer.
At 20th level, a Human Fighter will have 22 Feats (3 at 1st level, 1 at every level thereafter).
At 20th level, a Spontaneous full caster will have 43 spells known. Not counting Feats like Expanded Arcana, racial Favored Class Bonuses, and magic items like Pages of Spell Knowledge.
Spells are more plentiful than Feats.
2.) You don't see time and money constraints as actual constraints. You have yet to give a satisfactory explanation why.
Use official adventures as guidelines. Barring Kingmaker, time is a precious resource in APs. Sure, you can use the adventuring day thing to still craft...at half speed. And by the time you complete many of these items even at normal speed, the adventure could be OVER. A lot of APs take place within the span of a couple of months, or even less. That's less time than it takes to craft some bigger ticket items.
In addition, there are clear rules for Wealth by Level. They constrict pretty hard what you can purchase or craft. No more than X gold at Y level, and no more than 1/2 (or was it 1/3?) of that on a single item.
Your 3rd level crafter can't afford Bracers of Armor +2, much less a Luckblade. A Luckblade with one wish costs 43k gold, give or take a few hundred.
You need to be at least 12th level to be able to afford it by the rules (11th level at 82k isn't quite enough to bypass the "no more than 1/2" rule).
That's a far cry from what you proposed in the OP, a 7th level character crafting it. He can't afford it, even if he spent all his wealth on it.
That 17th level caster has a lower DC (and this a faster crafting time with accelerated crafting) and the percentage of wealth he must spend is negligible by comparison.
It's a good limit, I don't know why you keep dismissing it out of hand.
Just to point ti out, it is not 62 days to make a luck sword with a single wish, it is 38 days. The material cost for the wish don't add to the crafting time.
- * -
Wealth is a limit.
Not really, if you are in a campaign with plenty of downtime.
Take the downtime rules from ultimate campaign, start making magic capital, then craft magic item that you sell.
You trade time for reduce cost in crafting magic items, so you end paying 1/4 of the price of the item to make it and you sell at half price (I would allow you to sell it at more than half price if you are managing a shop, but let's stick to the rules).
Every day you produce at least 200 gp worth of magical supplies at a cost of 100 gp, after 2.5 days you have produced 500 gp of magical supplies that can be used to produce a 1.000 gp magical item.
Net gain 250 gp every 3.5 days. 71 gp/day.
You work 5 days/week, a Wealthy lifestyle cost 100 gp/month.
Even assuming you work only 4 week every month [you have earned take your holidays) you net gain is 1320 gp/month.
43.835 gp for the luck blade?
That is 439 units of magical capital and 22.000 gp.
17 weeks to earn the 22.000 gp (117 days). 220 days to convert them in magical capital. 38 days to make the sword.
375 days to get a luck blade with a initial capital of a few hundred gp to cover the cost of producing the initial magical capital.
If instead of doing it at leisure, you push it a bit, crafting things at double speed and working 52 weeks every year instead of 48 it can be done even faster.
During the long typing, research into the SRDs, editing, and deleting (yes, I actually remove whole paragraphs at times) of my reply and hitting preview to make sure it formats correctly, I see this.
Just had to save the reply draft I have coming and reply that apparently any perceived wit I may convey will apparently be soulless.
So if a character gets an arbitrary amount of gold and downtime he might gain access to resources the game does not otherwise expect him to gain access to?
In other news the profession skill is borked - with a mere decade of downtime and profession skill checks a level 1 character might amass thousands of gold pieces, completely invalidating the WBL chart.
The primary limits for crafting are money and time. The GM has control over how much of both of these are available. So I don't really envision this being a real problem. If the GM doesn't want players to do this, then they have to rush off on the next quest and only have time to stop for a day in town to resupply.
If you are running a sandbox game then the economics of things need to be adjusted heavily anyway, so houserule away.
The thing is, I mostly play published adventures. I've read or played through a good chunk of them (Rise of the Runelords, Serpent's Skull, Carrion Crown I've played/GM'd previously, I'm currently GMing Skull and Shackles, and I've read through a good bit of Kingmaker, Council of Thieves, and just started Reign of Winter so I don't really have any relevant info from that.).
In all but Kingmaker for official Paizo APs (for 3PP, at least book 2 of Way of the Wicked has a lot of downtime), downtime is a precious commodity. Taking more than maybe a week of downtime per book is often a fail condition for an AP (Especially Rise of the Runelords and Carrion Crown).
That is the default assumption of the game: Downtime is scarce. Changing that assumption may lead to imbalance, yes (though still doesn't bypass the wealth restriction). Changing a lot of core assumptions leads to imbalances though. If you only have one encounter a day, many classes going nova can be unbalancing, is a common one.
I don't think scenarios based on core disruptions should be taken into account as a sole decider of balance.
As for Monks vs Wizards on skills...this one should be obvious, c'mon. Your average Monk probably won't have higher than a 10 or 12 Int, maybe 13 if he wants to be maneuver focused.
That's a grand total of 5 skills per level, 6 if he's human.
Meanwhile, the Wizard doesn't want to start with less than an 18 most of the time. That's 6 out of the gate. 7 if he's human.
And the disparity grows from there, since the Monk's headband slot will wanna be devoted to the lovely Headband of Inspired Wisdom, whereas the Wizard's is obviously going to be devoted to his very pretty Intelligence boosting headband (yeah I can never remember the fancy name for the Int headband, so sue me).
1.) You think non-casters being able to skip the prerequisites somehow harms the game. Or, more accurately,...<removed because of inaccuracy>...
This is my Stop-Saying-That-Over-and-Over voice.
I don't have a problem with non-casters being able to craft items.
Read the first paragraph. I say I have a problem with allowing anyone to ignore requirements.
When I say I especially disapprove of allowing the hand-waving of having the spell on hand for creation, it's because the ignorance of how that affects the system actually means that meeting the requirement costs you more for no actual benefit.
You can try and say that losing access to a spell available is no biiiig deal (because one day, maybe, perhaps... that character will be able to create a demiplane 14 levels or 3 years of play time down the road), and I am certainly not saying it makes them unplayable, but it would be like saying 'While crafting a weapon, the creator can still adventure, but can make no more than 2 attacks based on BAB due to muscle fatigue from smithing.' Sure it affects everyone, but really only classes with Full BAB and your insistence that this is fair because one day, they'll be able to make 4 attacks a round is okay, and one of those classes (fighter) gets more feats than any other class is so off-base from the point that I... I guess... I wonder what your reply would have been in a post where a player said in his campaign two characters did the exact same thing, but his character (and he admits it's right there in the rules, not his DMs call. The DM showed it to him) was forced to be down in power for doing nothing wrong (because his character is actually doing everything the right way). I bet your answer would be different than what you're implying here only because you are set on not seeing my point of view. You would go on a tirade about how that's a terrible DM and he needs to change that system.
I then make it quite apparent throughout my post and follow-up posts that it isn't just being able to ignore certain requirements, but ones that are in game for years and years based on the the system of when a character could craft create them, which has been removed. A system based on the physical realities of having the power level and character level where the attempt could even be made. I will go into gold 'limits', again, a little farther down.
I think Master Craftsman is a great skill. It isn't Master Craftsman that allows the bypassing of any requirements. It gives people without the requirements a way to meet those requirements. This feat is the only way that I see of allowing non-casters to do this and it is PERFECT, in my opinion, in accomplishing this task. It makes a crafter's skill ranks (in the chosen skill) equal to a caster's caster level for purposes of qualifying for Craft Magic Arms and Armor and Craft Wondrous Item. It doesn't allow ignoring anything.
(I am just going to use Craft for skill purposes here, I don't want you think I'm forgetting that you can also use Profession. I don't want to have to keep typing: 'craft (or profession)' every single time. Technically, I suppose... Profession (Librarian) or Profession (Prostitute) could create... some kind of item appropriate, but to save time, just gonna use 'Craft'.)
The fact that it costs a feat, to allow a non-caster to create what otherwise they never ever ever ever could is a fair cost and it is placed at a level with a prerequisite I think is very good. It always provides a bonus to the check which covers roughly half the cost of the DC increase in case there is a requirement you don't meet and applies to his craft in ALL cases even for making items that aren't using the Magic Item Creation feats, with all benefits thereof, including the reduction in crafting time that comes from high rolls.
The feat is even better here than it would be in 3.0, where you'd qualify for it at 5th-level, but have to wait until 6th-level and then 9th-level to take one of the Crafting Feats it let you qualify for. I do NOT have a problem with non-casters making objects. Every other requirement for making an item (there might be one or two exception, there always are if you want to look and find one, be my guest) is something that can either be found with very little effort (cat's grace, divine favor) or something that a caster would have an equally hard time meeting as a non-caster (must be an elf, must have 5 ranks of Profession (Dancer), must be created on the solstice). In fact, there are some items that are probably easier for a non-caster to make.
It is not out of line to think that some weapons or armor require feats that a caster is unlikely to have. For instance, a weapon that requires the Cleave feat, much more likely that a non-casting class will have that. There could easily be an item of magic-bane with the requirement 'must have no spell-casting ability'. Not a bad ruling for a weapon made from cold iron or any other appropriate ability if someone really wants to make one. It isn't typically the case, yes, but saying that casters are always at the advantage is a lie.
Again Non-casters is not the issue of the discussion. Stop trying to imply that I am on some Keep-everybody-down-because-I-heart-sorcerers kick.
In plain English:
People being able to ignore requirements is NOT the problem in-and-of itself. It's that fact that in the process of allowing the ignoring of requirements the ability is there for a player, by the rules, to legitimately make an item which was designed to be balanced using a set of guidelines that this does an end-run around AND also how this affects characters built which (or who just happen to) meet those guidelines. (IE, you suffer a restriction when others do not for no actual good reason).
Quote:
...people who meet the prerequisites are likely not harmed in the slightest
Unlikely, perhaps. Until they are. At which point, you don't really have a good excuse to say to the person who was harmed by it other than:
"Well uhhh... I mean... I was told that it could happen... so I could have... done something but... even though I admitted it could happen, though unlikely... I was so pissed off that a 20th-level sorcerer knows 43 spells I didn't want to see that there was a legitimate thing to contemplate. I guess I was wrong."
This is not in a situation where someone was trying to make a 'higher' magical item, just a normal magic item with its actual costs.
Conversation with an understanding PC, if you're lucky:
PC:"Yeah, I guess that's just how it goes. I mean, sometimes, unlikely though it may be, it can come down to having one (or two, some items require multiple lost slots) spell slot. Just a shame that the other guy doing the exact same thing as me came out completely unharmed because he... didn't have a spell that he needed.. and so... he had the available slot to... cast the spell that he needed. Guess I'll roll up a new character."
DM"Okay, that's good because he looted your gear. Tells me he's going to use it and all the money you left back at home to make an even more powerful item when he's done with this one."
PC:"But, how can he even pick up my gear? Shouldn't it magically pass through his hands the minute he goes 1 gold piece over the WBL limit?"
DM:"Uhh... I thought that it would somehow, that there was no way a character could save money or get help from his teammates... I mean... I could just saaaaay that he can't do it, now that he's done it. I could... fiat that... you have a family and the inheritence should go to them but... that's all roleplaying and he could say he doesn't care, I mean... there should have been a better guideline I suppose...."
Your 'rule' is nothing more than a social contract between you and the players, it's not enforceable except if you bring down the DM hammer. They might agree that they won't do it because it would unbalance things, but otherwise, you would have to declare it a 'rule' of your own.
You could try and say that loot and cash from defeated party members could be used to buy a powerful item anyway and that such things don't have anything to do with the crafting system. There's a big difference. Aside from having to pay full price (twice as much), if a PC ask you if he can find an item that's too powerful, you can legitimately say, "Can't find anyone selling it or willing to take the time to make one."
That's a reasonable thing to say, even if the PC has come up with the money, unless you already put that item in the game. Such as, having them see it in a shop but priced at a cost you thought they'd never be willing to pay, but you were wrong, they were willing to take some time and effort to get it. At least then you can have it not there, "Sorry, sold that two days ago."
You would have a conniption if you said, "I have the time (unless you're going to have me attacked while crafting it or something occurs that I can't possibly know about and you telling me I don't have time because something is going to occur that I don't know about would make no sense and thus influence my character's actions in ways that would piss me off in any other post), I gathered the money, I want to make this item," and your DM said, "No, you can't."
Conversation:
"Yes, I can, I have the time, I have the money. It wasn't easy, I had to save, skimp on some other gear, the other PCs chipped in a couple hundred each cause they knew I was really working hard. I've taken the feat..."
"Yeah... it costs too much."
"You mean it's expensive? I know, that's why I saved up the money."
"No, it costs too much for you to have. Also, because you can afford it means I have to take that money away from you. I mean, it's not just going to 'vanish', but there's going to be in-game taxes and your nephew is going to get sick unless you buy some clerical assistance and give him a loan to upkeep his farm. It's all by the rules."
Quote:
In addition, there are clear rules for Wealth by Level. They constrict pretty hard what you can purchase or craft.
There are not clear rules on Wealth by Level that [re]strict what you can purchase or craft.
Quote:
Character Wealth by Level can also be used to budget gear for characters starting above 1st level, such as a new character created to replace a dead one. Characters should spend no more than half their total wealth on any single item.
Quote:
For a balanced approach, PCs that are built after 1st level should spend ... <lists suggested percentages for what will make a balanced character, so a player doesn't end up neglecting an area>. Different character types might spend their wealth differently than these percentages suggest...
It's a suggestion to help players bringing in a character not overspend on one item and accidentally hamstring themselves. It's not a rule. It's there to alert the DM that if he sees such a thing, there's a good chance that it could come back to bite the player in the long run.
How do we know it's a guideline for placing treasure, but it actually says that. How do we know these numbers are used to budget characters on a 'starting wealth' basis, because there's no range for what a 1st level character 'maxes out at (by your assertion that these are hard limits)' It instead instructs us to 'See Table 6-1 in Equipment,' but none of use are going to believe that a 1st-level character's WBL is expected to be no more than that set by their starting gold or that suddenly WBL varies based on character class.
A rule is, 'Characters cannot start with an item above x%.' I know, I use it myself by not allowing a starting character to start with an item above 25%, but that's MY rule, not 'the' rule.
Here is what you probably think of as the iron-clad rule of WBL (last line of that section):
Quote:
As a general rule, PCs should not own any magic item worth more than half their total character wealth, so make sure to check before awarding expensive magic items.
Now, the term 'as a general rule' may or may not be interpreted as saying 'This is the rule.' but it is at the end of a paragraph which is referring to how much treasure a DM places in his encounters and that if he's going to place an item, a good general rule is that it shouldn't be worth more than half a character's WBL.
This whole section says nothing about whether a PC can or can't save money or create an object of a certain value. There's no reason that a 1st-level artist can't begin crafting a piece of artwork that will be worth 10,000 gold pieces if they want to, or that a player can't make themselves a suit of full-plate armor at 1st-level if they want to make the effort and can get the 500 gp. (1/3rd price) for the materials. We aren't talking starting gold here, but what could reasonably be done during the course of an entire level (usually level 1 is a short period, but there's no more a hard and fast rule on time as a level restriction than there is on it being a power safeguard for crafting. There might be suggested lengths, but not rules) Is 500 gold pieces within the range of a 1st-level character? I am sure there are far more people who say yes than there are people who will say it's impossible because there are rules to prevent it. Unless you are going to imply they cheated or their DMs were doing it wrong.
The WBL listings are there for the DM to adjust the treasure he places in a campaign and to assist in understanding what fair challenges to place in an adventure. Yes, also used as guideline for PCs starting above level 1). For instance, if he has an encounter that likely will require a specific magical item or power, he can get the cost and see that, no at that level the item is probably unlikely to be in one of the characters' possessions.
The Devs would never put a rule like that there because it is understood that there is no accurate way to base gear power and proper balance on a gold piece amount alone, It is a suggested guideline, a good suggestion.
The WBL table is clearly listed as being an expectation of what they should 'at least' be at... not necessarily where they cannot suddenly gather more treasure.
Quote:
Character Wealth by Level lists the amount of treasure each PC is expected to have at a specific level.
...approximately... though they admit it could be different... because each campaign is different... even official adventure paths might be different.
Quote:
Note that this table assumes a standard fantasy game. Low-fantasy games might award only half this value, while high-fantasy games might double the value.
That's right, we're obviously assuming Standard ratings here, but even your official adventure paths might be Standard fantasy, that could fluctuate up or down by 25% in either direction before being considered High fantasy or Low fantasy. At what point are you rating your adventures as upper-middle-standard or upper-low? That's a reasonable leeway and margin of error even among what is considered a standard treasure campaign. Are you seriously reading ahead through your whole adventure path and calculating the 'possible' treasure that might be found and going, "Hmm, even assuming they miss some that's 5% higher than the listed standard level... still standard... so, gonna increase WBL for this campaign by 5%." Now your players have to get their calculators out again, to increase WBL for your way of thinking (which isn't so bad, yay 5% more starting gear), then they have to take the cost of what they want, see how that compares percentage wise to the new WBL you set, then they have to take into account the 25% fair WBL increase for having an item creation feat (if not more for multiples ones), all because you think it's an easy clear system to prevent them from starting with crafted gear that would be too powerful for their level (this is about crafted gear, not bought gear.)
Yes, clearly being unable to afford an item will prevent someone from crafting it, but WBL is a gold piece based listing and simple gold piece amounts (Price) is not an accurate measure of how useful or powerful an item is. It is a measure of how effort it takes to make it, but just because two characters have gear equal to 10,000 go, doesn't mean each is equally powerful or balanced.
A potion of cure serious wounds (3d8+5) is 750 gp. Ten potions of cure light wounds (1d8+1) is 500 gp. Yet, except in the rare case where you need more than 9 but fewer than 29 hit points in one round, everyone would agree which gear actually has more value to a character. If you were offered the choice of one of those options I would suspect most would go with the far weaker potions even though their 'value' (if it's to be assumed that price is an indication of power is less. Clearly, we can't use price as a guideline for what makes for a fair gear choice. (Unless you had Brew Potions, then you might take the 750 gold piece potion, sell it for 375 gold pieces and craft 15 [1]cure light wounds[/i] potions.
Is a Helm of Teleportation really that much more powerful than Boots of Teleportation? Understandably, it frees a boot slot for another pair of boots, but 24,000 gold pieces difference is not reasonable (when considering that using it for your method makes it an item of extreme power. Perfectly fine with with why it costs extra by the rules which it designed by: being an uncustomary slot.) But for power level gear purposes, the price is poor restriction or guideline to what's reasonable.
I will respond more in a bit about some other queries that have come up as well as more on time as a restriction, etc.
You really need to condense your posts because I honestly can't be arsed to read all that to the extent I would need to to respond appropriately. That's part of your problem. You use too many words to try and explain your position that you end up making it less clear overall.
Boil it down to some basic bullet points. Easier to respond to and read for informal conversations.
The basic gist of it though is this: You don't think a guideline for GMs is a good enough restriction, because some GMs may not follow that guideline? If I'm wrong, tell me.
I don't agree. I think a guideline exists for a reason. Yes, these guidelines may be loosened, tightened, or done away with altogether if the GM wishes. Just like any rule.
But the consequences for the abolishment of a guideline are not faults in the system itself.
Also, you have a problem with the removal of prerequisites. I get that. I just sincerely don't understand your reasoning. You seem to be under the impression that the loss of a spell slot is some kind of life or death situation, and the character who ignores the DC is somehow ending up significantly more powerful...because he might need to cast a different spell the day he's crafting? Yeah, you're not making much sense there to me at all.
If the character is a spontaneous caster, he's out a spell known (or the cost of a scroll, I believe that works). This is potentially a problem sometimes. Maybe. Depends on the spell, is the thing. There are very few useless spells in the game, really. No Sorcerer is going to cry "Oh man, it sucks I needed to get Haste to make these Boots of Speed!", you know? But sure, maybe, sometimes, once in a blue moon, the Sorcerer will say "Man I wish I knew Fireball instead of Wind Wall...", but that's the cost of being a Spontaneous caster. No matter what you do, you're always going to be disappointed on occasion you don't know something.
If you're a prepared caster...big whoop. You spent 30 gold to get a new spell scribed into your book, cast it while you were crafting, and never prepared it again if it wasn't useful. Big investment.
The person who is increasing the DC is increasing the time. I get that you don't see this as a legit constraint, but I do. And I think that's more than a fair trade, especially in the case of the prepared cster.
Bullet points:
-Ignoring guidelines is not a good idea if you wanna maintain balance. Do so at your own risk, don't cry the game is unbalanced when you do. This is ESPECIALLY true for WBL. Enormous amounts of player power and utility is tied into gear. Giving more gear increases both of those things. Increasing both of those things too far leads to large imbalances. Again, don't cry, the guidelines were there for a reason.
-The investment for casters who want to meet prerequisites (especially prepared casters) is minimal in most cases, and has advantages. I don't see the issue.
Yes, clearly being unable to afford an item will prevent someone from crafting it, but WBL is a gold piece based listing and simple gold piece amounts (Price) is not an accurate measure of how useful or powerful an item is. It is a measure of how effort it takes to make it, but just because two characters have gear equal to 10,000 go, doesn't mean each is equally powerful or balanced.
Generally, Price IS a good measurement of how powerful an item is. Or rather, it sets a decent maximum on item power. There are tons of overpriced items, but very, very few underpriced ones.
So the system works pretty well overall.
Arguing about how taking item crafting feats means you have more gear is a different subject than "skipping requirements is bad."
Yes, item crafters have more gear, since they can craft from gold and convert without loss unwanted items. On the other hand, they also have Item Crafting feats instead of metamagic feats or other such feats. So it partially balances out. They can be more powerful, depending (certainly Craft Wondrous Item is probably too good). This doesn't have anything to do with skipping requirements, really.
That said, in general the balance of the game isn't that great. Crafting doesn't upset it all that much relative to the big imbalances that are already there.
If you give the PC's better gear than the guidelines suggest then they will be more powerful than the game expects? Shocking revelations in this thread.
Also, good luck crafting your fullplate. Assuming a +9 bonus to Craft [Armor] (which, while not maxed out, is still very good for a level 1 character) and taking 10 each week, it will take you 42 weeks to finish. That's assuming you want non-masterwork, non-mithral fullplate and that you're not doing anything strenuous like actually adventuring during that time. Forget about crafting that over the course of one level; you'd be lucky to finish that over the course of ten levels. (A ninth-level wizard, of course, can finish the whole thing in six seconds... but only at the truly crippling cost of an entire spell slot!!)
The rules also state explicitly that you need to pay the full cost before you make any crafting progress at all.
Also, you have a problem with the removal of prerequisites. I get that. I just sincerely don't understand your reasoning. You seem to be under the impression that the loss of a spell slot is some kind of life or death situation, and the character who ignores the DC is somehow ending up significantly more powerful...because he might need to cast a different spell the day he's crafting? Yeah, you're not making much sense there to me at all.
First, nowhere do I ever imply this is typically a life-or-death situation or amounts to a death sentence.
Second, yes, the main problem I have is that it penalizes (you may not think it a significant penalty but you do admit that it does) someone who actually meets the requirements for performing a task.
This is just one quick example, which purposefully will use a 1st level slot for ease of reference, because I know you don't want me going to look for all the other examples and taking a long time.. It's not meant to show some catastrophic flaw or that you have to agree it's a big deal, only that it's a valid point. This is me entering into a social contract with you that I will not have to spell everything out for fear of you dismissing what is only an expeditiously posted example without addressing its actual content.
In your case of a spontaneous caster, it not only takes up a spell slot available, but it is quite possible that they will then have a suboptimal spell for two levels because they had it.
Your spontaneous caster player wants to make Bracers of armor +4. He meets the requirements, he has the spell he makes it. Someone without meeting the requirements does the same. Now while he's making them, he does not have access to his spell. The other person does. We understand this, we agree on it that it is a disadvantage, though how bad is obviously debated.
After he gets his item, he's then stuck with a spell that is of significantly reduced value to him. Sure he could cast it on another person, not saying there aren't uses, but that's not the heart of the example. The spell is one he is then stuck with for possibly two levels before he can switch it out.
Yes, I understand that its just a 1st-level slot in this example. Big whoop to you, I get it. You aren't really playing that character or being put into that position, but in some cases, it actually can go beyond just not having a spell available while doing nothing.
You then have to go adventuring to get experience to go up levels but with a sub-optimal spell taking up one (or possibly more if the item you wanted had more requirements) of your very limited spells known and survive through 2 levels.
I just find that to be a bit... 'poorly thought-out' when by not meeting the requirements you are not affected in the same way.
Actually, I am playing that character and being put in that position. One of my current characters is a level 9 Oracle. A Necromancer AND a crafter, so he gets hit double by the "Need a spell to do my stuff" clause (you'd be surprised how many special undead require spells to make. And it's a pain in the dick that they don't have ANY sort of clause that lets you ignore those prerequisites, I tell you).
Can you pick out the spells I've been forced to take? Or are they mingled in with spells I would have taken anyway that it doesn't matter?
And, by the by, I've been hit on a few occasions where the fact that I don't have the spell puts the crafting out of my reach as a done deal. If you can't Take 10, there's a possibility of failure. And then you lose all the money you put into it.
The primary limits for crafting are money and time. The GM has control over how much of both of these are available. So I don't really envision this being a real problem.
I don't disagree with you that the primary limits for crafting are money and time. Mostly money. Can't make something you can't pay for obviously.
It's that expecting money or time to be a good determination of an item's power-level is not the best idea.
From a previous post, which might have been too verbose and might reasonably have gotten missed a question was asked:
Quote:
Is a Helm of Teleportation really that much more powerful than Boots of Teleportation?
Understandably, it frees a boot slot for another pair of boots, but 24,000 gold pieces difference is not reasonable (when considering that by the price-as-power-indicator it would seem an item of extreme power. I'm perfectly fine with with why it costs extra by the rules which it designed for: being an uncustomary slot.) But for power level gear purposes, the price is poor restriction or guideline to what's reasonable.
Peet wrote:
If the GM doesn't want players to do this, then they have to rush off on the next quest and only have time to stop for a day in town to resupply.
If the GM doesn't want players to do this he should tell them not to take Crafting feats, not blindside when they try and use the feats to make an item they can afford.
In all honesty, a player doesn't necessarily know how much time they have. It's not always that suddenly a fire starts in town that the players see and know to stop, but maybe because they didn't go someplace, someone died and they won't find out until later. The DM can delay things or alter what occurs, but that's not really the point, he can do that for anything.
Pizza Lord, Spontaneous casters are not stuck with a spell they do not want.
First, they can ask someone else to provide the spell (that is in the rules).
Second, they can put a different spell in it's place. In your example the Sorcerer would have to keep his 'wasted spell' for exactly one level.
Frankly, I think you are making a big deal out of nothing. So what if people don't have the pre-requisites? They can acquire them any number of ways (get help from someone, scroll, wand, etc) and if all that fails they can make the item more difficult to craft.
As a sidenote: I have been unable to craft magic items because not having the spell pushed the DC too high even though it was a low price item. So yes, it does happen. (Example: Jingasa of the Fortunate Soldier)
In your example the Sorcerer's "wasted spell" is also something he would already have taken ages ago because Mage Armor is pretty helpful for not dying. Sure, you don't need it anymore after you get +4 Bracers, but you need to survive the first ten levels first.
And sure, the helm might be a bit overcosted compared to another item. What's your point? If you have any ability to customize your gear - which, hey, this is a thread about magical crafting, you do - you're not going to be taking overpriced junk. Nobody expects all gear loadouts with the same price to be equally useful; 300,000gp worth of gear isn't very helpful if it comes in the form of a thousand masterwork shortswords. But if you give a party 300,000gp and say "Gear up with this", they're going to end up more powerful than if you give them only 2,000gp because they're not going to be investing in a thousand masterwork shortswords.
More money means you buy more shiny things. More shiny things make you stronger. More money makes the party stronger. So if you give the party too much money, the party might be too strong. Sorry if this is hard to understand.
The person who is increasing the DC is increasing the time.
Doesn't it cut the time when you increase the DC? Or do you mean that a higher DC increases the crafting time by itself? I am pretty sure that two there is no increase in crafting time because a requirement is ignored. Unless you are going to say that the +5 DC lands in a sweet spot that would allow a chance of failure. I think that situation is not typically the norm.
Assuming a non-failable check otherwise, meaning they just barely can't fail on a one, they would have to roll 5 or less, still pretty good odds. In almost every cases Take 10 is an option unless you're out adventuring. So even then, as long as can fail on a four less, it's still an auto success. Only in the case where the +5 pushes up into the fail on an 11 to 14 range is that really getting iffy and start requiring a roll of 11 or more. Higher than 15 and you were really stretching it already and having to roll.
Quote:
First, they can ask someone else to provide the spell (that is in the rules).
I do know that, in fact. Wasn't really part of that example, but yes your point is well taken for why it's not necessary to allow ignoring spell requirements. Because... you can easily ask someone else to provide the spell. It's been discussed.
Guass wrote:
Second, they can put a different spell in it's place. In your example the Sorcerer would have to keep his 'wasted spell' for exactly one level.
Sorry, I thought I read that they got to trade out spells every even-numbered level. Is that not right?
So if a character gets an arbitrary amount of gold and downtime he might gain access to resources the game does not otherwise expect him to gain access to?
In other news the profession skill is borked - with a mere decade of downtime and profession skill checks a level 1 character might amass thousands of gold pieces, completely invalidating the WBL chart.
It that is a reply to me, maybe you should read my post and think about what you have read.
All you need is a few skill point, 250 gp to produce the starting magical capital, a crafting feat and 10 gp to live for 1 month at an average lifestyle.
End result: a 62,360 gp item after 375 days of work, while living a wealthy lifestyle, with free week ends and a month of holidays.
That is very different from "a mere decade of downtime".
The only limit is that you need Craft Magic Arms and Armor and that require you to be 5th level. If you go this route with Craft wondrous items you can be 3rd level (you wouldn't have a wish blade, but you could have a equivalent value item).
Like numerous other posters have already pointed out, crafting is balanced by three limitations: Cost (in the form of gold), requirements (in the form of skill points, feats, and so on), and time (the downtime required to make the item).
If you completely disregard two of the three limitations of crafting then yes, it will look unbalanced.
It's a bit like going: If the party only has one encounter per day then casters are totally OP! Which coincidentally is also frequently brought up as a problem with Kingmaker.
The problem is that saying "you have no downtime" is even more arbitrary. It is something that is fairly ingrained in the modern AP, but is no mandatory at all.
The norm isn't "you go from level 1 to level 20 in 6 months".
If you have downtime, you can make the money, as I showed.
Skills, you can craft them (you can have a magi item giving up to a +10 to a skill for the cost of 10.000 gp).
In advance, this is more rant than question on a rule, which is why I put it here. I don't like the rules changes for crafting that lets someone ignore CL or certain requirements, most especially access to spells required. I DO like the Master Craftsman feat they added. It lets skilled crafters create items without having to become spell-casting classes. I just think having to either learn the spell or find someone who can cast it is not really that hard unless it's a rare spell or class... and then it should be hard to get, because it's a rare spell, not something you can fake with a +5 check. I can't ask for a Spellcraft check in combat at DC 10 +spell level +5 to just cast a spell I don't know.
Alright, I might be wrong here. I don't typically play Pathfinder so skills might throw me for a loop and feat gains might trip me up as well. Correct me if I am wrong, but:
Assuming a reasonably-focused crafting character at 5th level will have 5 ranks of Craft (weaponsmith). This means he can take Master Craftsman at 5th-level. His next feat comes at 7th? He can take Craft Magical Arms and Armor.
Now he has 7 ranks in Craft skill, likely a +4 for intelligence, +2 for Master Craftsman, with another +3 because he has a rank in Craft which is a class skill. So he has +16 to Craft without a doubt. Possibly +3 for Skill Focus, +2 if a gnome, +1 for an Intelligence booster, +2 masterwork tools. So not unreasonably a +20 to Craft at 7th-level and actually +23 is not hard to get.
If this 7th level character wants to craft a Luckblade with 1 wish (price: 62,360, cost: 43,835), he needs Craft Arms and Armor, which he has. Other than that, he spends 63 days, makes a DC 27 check [17 + 5 (for not having wish) + 5 (for not being CL 17, which is a special requirement for this weapon). That's not a check he can believably fail even assuming you aren't letting him just Take 10. I know, that's a lot of gold. We all know that's not really an obstacle and a party could have been saving...
I've been following this discussion with both a- and be-musement. This has never come up in my games, but hey what do I know?
Just theoretically though, how about this houserule for a fix: To craft an item, you have to increase the DC by 5 for each caster level in difference between your CL and the item's requirement. That way if Joe Commoner (CL 0) tries to craft something requiring CL 17 he has to cough up +85 DC.
