harry.ashton's page

It's in the Spells and Magic Web Enhancement, available as a free download.

Nevermind, found it in the web enhancement. Hopefully the final version either contains all the spells or at least has a quick reference indication in the spell list to show that it's in a web enhancement.

Don't know if this has been mentioned yet, so I'm putting it here.

The atonement spell, though referenced multiple times and on the cleric/druid (and maybe paladin?) spell lists, is missing from the spell description list in the Pathfinder RPG Beta.

Why does any class need to have a poor save in general? I think base save bonuses should be equal based on level for each class. Each class can have a static bonus to particular saves. That's how I'd do it if I was designing the game.

And we should all have abilities we can use at will, and all have ranged attack and melee attack options...we should all be the same class, or be any class under 4E!

Seriously, though, the saving throw bonuses, for good or ill, were one of the balancing and differentiating abilities given to each class. If you think this particular ability should be even across the board, then house rule it that way, but I would recommend giving classes with good saves (i.e. monks, paladins, etc) some sort of benefit elsewhere for balance.

Is there any opinions if a +1 to +5 weapon wielded on the off hand can stack its bonus for a +2 to +6 bonus to AC?

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicWeapons.htm#defending

This is a special ability of the weapon, not an inate ability of a character or a feat.

While we're on the subject of magic item creation, this would be a great opportunity to rethink the feats required.

As it stands, a caster can take one feat to make a scroll, a different feat to make a potion, a third feat to make a wand, a fourth feat to make a ring, etc.

Or, he can take one feat, and make any item he likes, in any body slot, charged, permanent, uses per day, class-specific or general, which works like any of the above, via Craft Wondrous Item.

Gloves of Magic Missiles; spell-trigger item, point your finger, fire 50 shots then crumble.
How is that not a wand?

Voodoo Doll; spell-completion item, arcane caster only, provokes AoO. Pull it out, stick a pin in it, acts as finger of death.
How is that not a scroll?

This trend only got worse in the Magic Item Compendium, which is full of ways to sidestep using the correct feats, not to mention, pre-requisites which are just plain wrong.
(Who needs Quicken Spell, to make an item of spell-quickening? s long as you have access to the Freedom of Movement spell, which is famous for granting this ability! Errr...no.)

Let's have feats that allow the creation of items based on their specifications;

Create Minor Item, leading to
Create Medium Item, leading to
Create Major Item

Create Charged Item, leading to
Create Daily Use Item, leading to
Create Permanent Item

Create Caster-Only Item, leading to
Create General-User Item, etc

Thus, the typical Sword +1 is a Minor, Permanent, General User Item.
A scroll of Disintegrate is a Medium, Charged, Caster-Only Item, etc

Then, to become a dedicated crafter requries a few feats,, not just the one you buy at level 3.

Thoughts?

Sounds good, in theory--that is until you put human (read: player) nature into the mix. As a crafting wizard, you have a limited number of feats. The system mentioned above would require 8 feats to make a longsword +5 (major, permanant, general use), where as it would only take 5 feats (still not doing it for a while) to make a wand of wishes, or wand of (insert lvl 9 spell name here). I can't make a ring of protection +5, as it's a permanent item, so I'll just make a staff that can cast stoneskin, mage armor, shield, and energy protection. Fewer feats and more bang for the buck.

But that's if someone decides to be a crafter. At low levels, you would have to have 3 feats to make a scroll, if I'm reading your chart correctly (minor, charged, and caster only), but at least you can make a wand as well. That's 3 feats the other party members spent on combat skills, skill buffs, caster buffs, etc. making them better in a fight. When you get to the higher levels, I wouldn't care about using 8 feats to make a magic longsword for the fighter, who spent those 8 feats on greater cleave/weapon spec/feat of instant whirling death...that's my feats spent to make him better. Screw it all and spend the gold to buy it, and I'll spend my feats on something useful.

This problem increases even more when you try the to limit it to a tiered based system. I have to take 5 feats to make armor and weapons? Armor and weapons that I can't use effectively. I'll take the lower levels and be done with it.

Bottom line is that if a player takes craft wands or scrolls, or even rings, they may be trying to create items that the DM is making it hard to find, or make a wand for every occasion (who doesn't want 50 fireballs available in one battle?), and the use needs to be watched closely by the dm, or even limited in some house rule fashion. Yet that person will only be saving themselves 50% of the gold (replenishable resource) in exchange for a feat (not as easily replenishable, or arguably nonreplenishable). Someone who takes craft arms and armor may be helping themselves indirectly (better tank means less likely the baddies get to you), but they are exchanging a feat to make their party members the stars instead of themselves, as I don't recall anything on the arms and armor list that is good for a wizard, especially at high levels (clerics could arguably be taking this feat for themselves, but they have fewer spare feats than wizards). Any system that makes you take fewer feats to make self only items encourages wizards being the magical powerhouse while the warrior is still looking for +1 plate mail.

If you don't like crafting pc's, talk to your players and let them know. As long as you offer them the chance to buy magic items once in a while (face it, half the drops of magic items aren't really usable by the party, or they shouldn't be anyway), then the player probably won't mind. I'm sure the casters will like having their feats back, and it's easier than changing the system and having unexpected consequences.

But that's just my 5 cents...too long winded for 2 cents I suppose.