The rules for an intelligent item's CL are the same as for all magic items; that's why there's no specific mention of establishing CL in the intelligent item section.
All intelligent items are based on non-intelligent magic items, and these already have an associated CL. Use this CL for the powers gained from being an intelligent item, except if it gives an SLA with a higher minimum CL, then use that as the item CL for all purposes.
For example, since magic weapons with an enhancement bonus have a CL of 3xbonus, then a +1 sword is CL 3. If this sword is made intelligent and this gives it CLW 3/day, since the minimum CL for CLW is CL1, then this doesn't increase the item's CL, so CLW heals 1d8+3 damage.
If the same sword has haste 1/day, then the minimum CL for that is CL5, therefore the item itself (and any SLA it has) is CL5, and its CLW heals 1d8+5.
If the sword is enchanted with keen, the minimum for that is CL10, so the whole item is CL10. CLW from it is cast at 10th level, but the limit if CLW has been hit so it still only heals 1d8+5.
Good answer. That's that way I read it too. It seemed a little easy so I wanted to make sure I had my stuff straight before I went into depth with it with the GM. Thanks.
I think you're probably right, and the intelligent item rules are sort of weird. There doesn't appear to be anything to give the item's intelligent-ness a distinct caster level, so yeah.
I thought so, but I wasn't sure. That is a sick ability for a 5th level caster to have. It's nice because a fighter with an intelligent weapon can just have his weapon turn on its flaming or corrosive abilities for him instead of wasting a standard action in combat doing it himself.
So how do you know what CL the item is to determine the effects of a spell cast by an intelligent Item?
For example, an intelligent item with the ability to cast a 2nd level spell 1/day - Barkskin.
If the item only has a +1 enchantment, then the CL is 3, right? So casting Barkskin would give the creature touched a +2 natural armor bonus.
If the item has a +1 enchantment and the Spell Storing ability (CL 12), would the target creature of Barkskin get +5 natural armor bonus to AC?
It just kind of seems weird that a 5th level caster with Craft Arms and Armor can create a 12 level casting intelligent item (bypassing the req by adding 5 to DC for Spell Storing Ability).
If you choose to call a kind of creature instead of a known individual, you may call either a single creature or several creatures. In either case, their total HD cannot exceed twice your caster level. In the case of a single creature, you can control it if its HD does not exceed your caster level. A creature with more HD than your caster level can't be controlled. Deities and unique beings cannot be controlled in any event. An uncontrolled being acts as it pleases, making the calling of such creatures rather dangerous. An uncontrolled being may return to its home plane at any time.
In this case an 18th level caster summoned an Ice Linnorm (18 HD), so he was able to control him and he could speak Draconic so there was no language issue.
I understand that a normal summon spell require 1 round and the actions of the summoned creature do not occur until the round after the summoner began casting the spell, but in the case of Gate, which requires 1 standard action, does the called creature get a full-round action the round the 'caller' cast the spell?
So what about Gate. The casting time is a standard action. Does the 'called' creature get a full round action in the round he was called? I would think so...it is a 9th level spell, but I wanted to get some input on it first.
We were playing the other night and we came to an open-field melee battle that we joined in on and none of us knew if there was a battle melee system that Pathfinder had developed. We tried to look it up but to no avail. Anybody know? We just ended up rolling percentage dice to see how badly we fared against the opponents army and it kind of got wonky.
Symbol of Death has a casting time of 10minutes and therefore it takes 10minutes to cast from a scroll.
Ooof! All the Symbol spells went from cool effects that could be used in combat to something PCs just walk into. I was under the impression that spells with long casting times can be completed and cast from a scroll in combat. If that is not the case, what does the following bolded sentence mean: 'A scroll is a spell that is mostly finished. The preparation is done for the caster, so no preparation time is needed beforehand as with normal spellcasting. All that's left to do is perform the finishing parts of the spellcasting (the final gestures, words, and so on).' From Spell Completion Items, same page.
Can a Symbol of Death Scroll be used in combat? The RAW say 'A scroll is a spell that is mostly finished. The preparation is done for the caster, so no preparation time is needed beforehand as with normal spellcasting.'
That would lead one to believe that the 10 minute casting time is unneccessary, right?
But two sentences later it says, 'Activating a spell completion item (scroll) is a standard action (or the spell's casting time, whichever is longer) and provokes attacks of opportunity exactly as casting a spell does.
So which is it...a standard action or the spell's casting time (10 minutes)?
I think that Item Creation Feats are undervalued and therefore any benefit you can get from them, you should be able to take it. Caster classes get very few feats (at 6th level, you have 3). Melee combat classes get a lot of choices and bonus feats (at 6th level, you could have as many as 9). A crafter (armor) brought in at 6th level should have been able to craft thier own armor using cost by WBL.
But when starting a campaign, the caster should get the benefits, not the rest of the table. They didn't take the feat.
what about in a non-combat round where there is no initiative count? Can the abilities be used for skill checks then? Survival, Spellcraft, Profession...?
The 5% gained from Hedge Magician does not reduce the base price of the item created so that will not reduce the amount of time necessary to craft the item.
If you are restricting the item, say making it only for good use, then the base price is affected and the time to create is lessened. Think of it as getting the effect without having to add the strands of evil to balance the item's magic.
Had a question about when the effects of spells have to occur. In the following two abilities, stackable bonuses are granted for 1 round.
Touch of Destiny:
At 1st level, you can touch a creature as a standard action, giving it an insight bonus on attack rolls, skill checks, ability checks, and saving throws equal to 1/2 your sorcerer level (minimum 1) for 1 round. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Charisma modifier.
Touch of Good:
You can touch a creature as a standard action, granting a sacred bonus on attack rolls, skill checks, ability checks, and saving throws equal to half your cleric level (minimum 1) for 1 round. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Wisdom modifier.
Does the effect have to occur on the following round? One is an insight bonus and the other is a sacred bonus. If one is cast in round 1, and the next in round 2, can the effect from round 1 ability be postponed until round 3 when the action that needs the bonuses takes place?
"An ally made of pure force appears in a single 5-foot square within range. The ally takes the form of a servant of your god. The spiritual ally occupies its space, though you and your allies can move through it, since it is your ally. The spiritual ally carries a single weapon, one favored by your deity (as for spiritual weapon), which has the same threat range and critical modifiers as a real weapon of its form. Each round on your turn, starting with the turn that you cast this spell, your spiritual ally can make an attack against a foe within its reach that you designate. The spiritual ally threatens adjacent squares and can flank and make attacks of opportunity as if it were a normal creature. The spiritual ally uses your base attack bonus (gaining extra attacks if your base attack bonus is high enough) plus your Wisdom bonus when it makes a melee attack. When the spiritual ally hits, it deals 1d10 points of force damage + 1 point of damage per 3 caster levels (maximum +5 at 15th level). It strikes as a spell, not a weapon, so it bypasses DR and can affect incorporeal creatures.
Each round after the first, you can move the spiritual ally as a swift action. It has a speed of 30 feet, and a fly speed of 30 feet (perfect maneuverability). Being a construct of force, the spiritual ally cannot be harmed by any physical attacks, but dispel magic, disintegrate, a sphere of annihilation, or a rod of cancellation affects it. A spiritual ally's AC against touch attacks is 10.
If an attacked creature has spell resistance, you make a caster level check (1d20 + caster level) against that spell resistance the first time the spiritual ally strikes it. If the ally is successfully resisted, the spell is dispelled. If not, the weapon has its normal full effect on that creature for the duration of the spell."
It says it is a construct of force, so can it be attacked by force (magic missiles) and if so what are its HP? None are listed.
there is errata has been written about CL being a requirement
in creating an item.
It is in errata 2.1.
• Page 460—In the Magic Items Description section,
under Caster Level, delete the last sentence of the
second paragraph.
that is the line that mentions CL as a hard requirement in creating items. So CL is not a requirement in creating anymore. Only those things listed in the line @ the end of an items description are required. Generally these are the needed creation feats and spells used.
I was talking more of "builds" using existing material. I don't quite understand the hatred many have for "builds from level 1 to level 20" (which often use multiple base classes and/or PrC), but then say that a published base class is great, when a base class is just somebody else's idea of a build that is codified. Just because somebody published something doesn't automatically qualify it as fitting a particular concept better, except in the minds of the publishers/designers.
Well, I get what your saying, pres man. We don't need more rules and 'bloat' to build a ninja/samurai/magus. We can build them already with the classes and rules we already have.
I get also that some people want others (the developer's) to build it for them to ensure balance, adding additional rules, features and stats, with the risk of bloat.
I understand both positions but tend to agree with the former. It takes more creativity and thought, IMHO.
All without screaming at everyone else to stop making more ideas.
Newsflash: No one is screaming, dude. Just disagreeing that you interpret as screaming.
mdt wrote:
Telling people to stop being creative is the sign of a small and closed mind.
Who is more creative, the player who creates a ninja from a rogue/monk in the current framework, or a player who has to wait for rules to come out to create a ninja? These new classes that everyone is discussing could be created by choosing the right feats and skills.
As implied in the OP, it seems like classes are being created for the sake of creating classes. What role does the ninja fill that is not already filled by the monk/rogue? What role does the samurai fill that is not already filled by the fighter/cavalier? Why do guns need their own class? Why is the PrC Eldritch Knight all of a sudden a base class (not exactly the same as the Magus but fills the same role)?
"I want to make a character that works like a rogue, but has some monk abilities and wears a black mask."
"OK let's make a new class"
There are a number of potential classes that would be flavorful, but don't fill a special purpose, IMHO. Let's make a new class called Priest. What role does it fill that is not already filled by the cleric. Others that can be fashioned in the current framework...beastmaster, abbot, pirate, gladiator, scholar.
A lot of these concerns were alleviated by the developers earlier in this post. Some of us who saw 4e explode are just a little concerned.
I love this game and I would hate to see it go down the same road.
[Along with the comment about Paizo shouldn't tell us how to make a class, in the homebrew section. The OP wanted a Gladiator that didn't fit in within the current rules set and decided work on making a version that fit that view. So apparently a homebrew class, alt, archetype, or PrC is enough to threaten rules bloat enough that it has to be shouted down?
No one is shouting. THIS IS SHOUTING.
Skaorn wrote:
I'm sorry but this is a big pet peve of mine on the homebrew threads. People want something in their game but, not only are they not allowed to get official rules support for it, they can't make it for themselves?
They can't? I didn't say he couldn't. And by the way, do you own these threads? People can't offer their own opinions and experiences on them without your approval? And we're not on the homebrew thread. And it's pet peEve.
Skaorn wrote:
Come on now, I refuse to believe that there are people holding guns to your heads making you play everything that is released, official or otherwise.
*YAWN* I'm tired of trying to explain what the OP said. Go read it. Abstract thought has been lost in this post.
I am just coming out of a group that imploded because the DM tried to force us into something we, the players, didn't want to do (switch off pathfinder).
Just projecting.
I was only trying to convey and support the idea of the OP.
Relax ya'll. You are acting like I ran over your dog. It's a game.
Having 5 different kinds of classes offers up more rules and points of ambiguity that may confuse players. (core, base, alternate, prestige, archetypes; each set up a different way and classifed differently)
How clear are the Magic Item Creation Rules? Hundreds of thread and questions surround that topic.
The different kinds of classes could make it more difficult for a DM to operate.
Why do we have to have 5 different types when the game could operate off of 2?
The current framework is growing when it doesn't have to. Ninja, samurai, gunslinger, magus can all be archtpyes. Are the base? Are they alternate? We won't know for a while.
And, btw, offering an opinion does not make me selfish. I have played through it. Saying I don't like something in the game makes me a bad guy? No. Maybe I'm not the only one projecting.
If you don't like splatbooks A, B, and C, then don't install them on your computer (IE: Don't use them!). Everyone's computer is both similar and distinct, since the combinations of OS, Apps, and Datafiles are infinite.
To continue with your analogy, my company has installed splatbooks A, B, and C. It's preventing me from running all of my programs and causing the black screen of death.
From the way you are speaking, I think you are a programmer and not an operator.
It's like making apple juice from concentrate. If you keep adding water, it gets so diluted that the flavor just dissipates.
As I said in another thread, we don't need Paizo to tell us how to make ninjas and samurai. Add guns to the equipment list and let the gamers sort it out and build characters themselves.
I was on that thread that you popped on, it was in the Homebrew thread were the OP was designing his own Gladiator class, not asking Paizo for it. Gladiator Thread.
Yep, I provided my build suggestion on the thread. Then, there was a lot of speak about making Gladiator an archetype, alternate, base, core, extra or supplemental class.
I just have never understood this viewpoint. More options are BAD?
As long as all the classes are balanced in comparison with the primary in the core rules how can having more choices be a bad thing?
In an absolutelt worst case scenario you simply do not use the classes that you don't like / use only the classes you do.
I just don't get it.
It's like making apple juice from concentrate. If you keep adding water, it gets so diluted that the flavor just dissipates.
As I said in another thread, we don't need Paizo to tell us how to make ninjas and samurai. Add guns to the equipment list and let the gamers sort it out and build characters themselves.
Ultimate Combat a sidebar or something that talks about Deflecting Bullets that basically says, "Hey, if you as the GM think it's cool for Deflect Arrows to work on bullets, go for it! But if you don't, that's fine too!"
For the love of Sarenrae, don't do that please.
In my humble opinion, it ruins the game to have wishy-washy "let the GM decide" rules.
Make the rule be that it does or does not work with Deflect Arrows, and allow the GM the freedom to Rule 0 it any way he likes in the game.
Please!
I have to agree. Wishy-washy rules lead to ambiguity, confusion and misunderstandings. See the numerous posts on Magic Item Creation.
so why is it impossible to believe you could catch a bullet (and need different rules for) than it its to catch an arrow?
When I was a kid I watched a guy on TV catch a bullet in his TEETH.
As far as a fantasy game is concerned, whats the difference?
They do the same damage, but the bow has much better range. As printed the bow is a better weapon, so wouldn't it be harder to catch an arrow than a bullet using that logic?
+1
If a monk's hands have the ability to change hardness (adamantine), I don't see what the big deal is.
I like the PrCs. Perhaps additional material released could be more focused on running longer campaigns (level 20+)
Follow me on this tree analogy. Instead of focusing on adding or expanding the trunk (base, core classes, archetypes) of Pathfinder, future additional releases can be focused on the branches (PrCs, expanded campaigns).
I like it because there is flexibility with the classes. The other game I was playing built the character for you at every level and it got boring...fast. Pathfinder offered a significant amount options in 3 books that this other game took 15 books to describe.
Requirements: Certain requirements must be met in order for a character to create a magic item. These include feats, spells, and miscellaneous requirements such as level, alignment, and race or kind.
Feats AND spells are not considered 'miscellaneous requirements' as is the requirement that brought about my ultimate downfall earlier in this thread.
Perhaps the developer allowed the +5 to the DC for the PoP because the requirement was a 'miscellaneous requirement' and not a feat OR spell requirement.
hmmm....
Plus I found this in the APG, under Advanced Magic Items...
The creator's caster level must be as high as the item's caster level (and additional requirements may effectively put a higher minimum on the creator's level).
I know the developer's have said that the CL is not a requirement for item creation, but does that contradict the above statement?
The creator's caster level must be as high as the item's caster level (and additional requirements may effectively put a higher minimum on the creator's level).
Do both people who are helping to create an item need the item creation feat?
PRD wrote:
It is possible for more than one character to cooperate in the creation of an item, with each participant providing one or more of the prerequisites. In some cases, cooperation may even be necessary.
If two or more characters cooperate to "create an item", they must agree among themselves who will be considered the creator for the purpose of determinations where the creator's level must be known.
Does this imply that those who fulfill the requirements need to have the ability to create the item?
If you can't "create an item" can you cooperate?
Why would there even be an agreement if one of the cooperaters couldn't create the item in the first place.
It only created a problem for your interpretation. It fits seamlessly into mine.
I guess the rules aren't MUBAR anymore!?!
BigNorseWolf wrote:
I interpreted must as "must or you increase the dc by 5"
If only the RAW said that...but they don't.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
and that's how he used it. So what we now have is two valid interpretations with one being backed by the lead designer. I think its time to get a new baby.
Your baby is a Munchkin.
Magic Item Creation should not be a walk in the park. That is opinion though.
Clerics should not be able to make Wands of Magic Missile.
Wizards/Sorcerers should not be able to make scrolls of Heal.
I think by dismissing the 'must's of the rules, exploits run rampant.
From Wizard class features:
To learn, prepare, or cast a spell, the wizard must have an Intelligence score equal to at least 10 + the spell level.
Well, the problem there is we've seen that "must" ISN"T MUST. Once the idea that must isn't must breaks, the entire rest of your argument goes out the window and the rest of it starts to make more sense: like the fact that
Careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The only thing we've established is that we took a phrase from a developer. While that phrase offered one solution, it created another problem too.
Though the listed Caster Level for a pearl of power is 17th, that caster level is not part of the Requirements listing for that item. Therefore, the only caster level requirement for a pearl of power is the character has to be able to cast spells of the desired level.
However, it makes sense that the minimum caster level of the pearl is the minimum caster level necessary to cast spells of that level--it would be strange for a 2nd-level pearl to be CL 1st.
For example, a 3rd-level wizard with Craft Wondrous Item can create a 1st-level pearl, with a minimum caster level of 1. He can set the caster level to whatever he wants (assuming he can meet the crafting DC), though the pearl's caster level has no effect on its powers (other than its ability to resist dispel magic). If he wants to make a 2nd-level pearl, the caster level has to be at least 3, as wizards can't cast 2nd-level spells until they reach character level 3. He can even try to make a 3rd-level pearl, though the minimum caster level is 5, and he adds +5 to the DC because he doesn't meet the "able to cast 3rd-level spells" requirement.
(SKR, 8/18/10)
–Sean K Reynolds (08/18/10)
Back to Top
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/v5748btpy88yj/faq#v5748eaic9n8m
-Right there. He says you can skip a requirement by adding 5 to the DC, and no mention is made of involving another creator in the process.
Well done, BNW. I stand corrected. You can by pass non-spell, non-item creation feat prereqs simply by adding 5 to the DC. Thank you.
That is refreshing. But in the example given doesn't that violate the other rule about making a magic item with a higher caster level than your own?
Reefwood also reads the rules very similar to me. I agree with a lot of his post.
The magic rules make assumptions, that people do not all agree with.
People want to make assumptions about what is specific and what is general, which is totally a matter of option. Option is subjective, based on the point of view of the reader, and how he wants to read the rules.
.......................
I do see other people points of view. In fact i can see reading the rules in five different ways, based on those points of view.
Until a FAQ or Errant is posted by someone official, that clarifies how these magic rules are to be read. Then this argument will continue forever.
That or they come out with a Ultimate Magic Item book, that re-writes the Magic Item Creation Rules, in a better format than they currently are written.
Ok, no rules or developer view points quoted to refute my "assumptions".
Let's read in order and breakdown the paragraph that everyone is having a problem with logically:
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 only exception to this is the requisite item creation feat, which is mandatory. In addition, you cannot create spell-trigger and spell-completion magic items without meeting their spell prerequisites.
Note that all items have prerequisites in their descriptions.
All items have prerquisites. OK.
These prerequisites must be met for the item to be created.
The feats must be attained, the spells must be cast, levels must be attained (among others).
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 item's creator must know (be familiar with) the spell. Another magic item or spellcaster can assist the creator in crafting the item.
The DC to create a magic item increases by +5 for each prerequisite the caster does not meet.
For every prereq the creator/caster (same thing) cannot meet (including casting the spells himself) you add +5 to the DC. So if the creator cannot cast the spell himself and uses another magic item or spellcaster, add 5 to the DC.
The only exception to this is the requisite item creation feat, which is mandatory.
The Item Creation feat must be attained before item creation can commence.
In addition (to the aforementioned exception),you cannot create spell-trigger and spell-completion magic items without meeting their spell prerequisites.
Emphasis added is mine to define "In addition".
This means the writer's meant to include "you cannot create spell-trigger and spell-completion magic items without meeting their spell prerequisites" as part of the only exception to "The DC to create a magic item increases by +5 for each prerequisite the caster does not meet."
When the rules are read in order and each sentence is broken down its much easier to see.
Now before you slander me with another snide remark, please prove/refute what I have broken down before you with dev words or rules. I hope you prove me wrong. I am a crafter in my current campaign. My DM doesn't get it so I work off the trust system. Then you can slander me. :-)
Well, raging hobbit doesn't even believe that precursors exist, and that coadunations add 5 to the dc. I think the fact that i can phrase that in one sentence is an improvement... but shows how MUBAR the wording is.
These are all words and meanings you brought into the conversation, not Paizo, so the only reason its MUBAR is because that's the way you see it. I think the developer's did a great job describing Magic Item Creation and the rules are quite clear to me. If I am wrong, I can take it. I hope that we get enough FAQ's to get a response.
Err on the side of difficulty to prevent exploits.
It's funny when people hear logic and reason applied to the rules and it doesn't correspond to their preconceived notions, they always say "man, the rules are MUBAR."
Yorik is a PC without any item creation feats. An NPC wizard with the craft wondrous item feat needs to sit in his shop for 8 hours on monday and 8 hours on tuesday to make a cloak of elven kind for Yorik. Either he will charge yorik 2,500 gp for a finished cloak, or yorik will have to bring him 1,250 gp worth of raw ingredients and he will charge yorik 1,250 gp for his time resulting in a cost of 2,500gp for the cloak.
OR
Yorik hits 3rd level and gets Craft wondrous item. His previous cloak having been lost in the dire poodle incident of 06, he finds the same elf and puts in for another one. What you're saying is that the same elf needs to work 8 hours on monday and 8 hours on tuesday.. but will not be charging Yorik anything. That doesn't make any sense to me. Or, if he charges yorik, then yorik wasted his feat.
No, Yorik can create the cloak himself now while consulting the NPC Wizard once per day.
Like I said before "I have no rule to point to that says the prereq has to be filled this way (with the help of an elf with the same item creation feat). It was just a possible solution to the problem."
