Yet another "have to remove all things negative" move that only serves to make PF more Blah then ever.Actually, this is the sort of catch that is the reason why we are doing this playtest. You should not be able to create spell trigger and completion items (such as scrolls, wands, and stafffs) without the appropriate spells... as that makes very little sense. The intent here, was to allow someone to create a gauntlet of rust without knowing rusting grasp.
That said, I am thinking more that there should be two types of penalty, a –5 for having someone else meet the prereq, and a significantly higher penalty for not meeting the prereq at all.
Thoughts?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo PublishingPS: Kong, you really should try to work with the playtest here instead of against it. This is the first time anyone outside Paizo has seen these rules and we knew there were going to be some changes, but your tone is not very helpful.
I will be the first too admit... I can get quite passionate about things, expecailly things that burn my briches.
I dont think someone should be able to create a guantlet of rust, without first knowing about the rusting grasp spell. Hand waving this sort of thing with a simple skill roll, lessens it and removes the reward of something achieved.
Plus it puts more "mechanics" cogs into the machine, and having to balance them. Might work great for these magic items, but its over or under balanced for these magical items. It lessens the backwards compatibility even more... forcing the GM to rework all other non PF magic items yet again.
I can whole heartedly agree, if you see prerequisites as they are a bad thing, and you want a work around and other option. Thats awesome, Im all for that. But lets create something that puts something into the game, not take something out of the game.
An idea that puts something into the game, and lets players work around Prereq. is instead of replacing the need for the "Rusting Grasp Spell"... with a simple skill roll. Replace it with a reward, something from an actual rust monster or monsters. Get so many flasks of rust monster blood, and that specific Prereq. is met. Get creative, breath some life into magical item creation.
Create a list of "Things" that can be used to replace the prereq. of certain spells, greater the spell the more rare the "thing".
Give players reasons to go and look for things. Give them reasons to adventure. Create game hooks. Create adventure. Dont remove it, or lessen it. Playes always kill monsters, and then look around for the reward. Well now instead of hiding the gold and magic items... the monster itself is the reward. The "Thing" can even reduce the gold needed to create the item (it is the reward for beating that encounter).
Look, you just reduced the gold grind to create items, and met the prereqs for the item too. Lots of people have expressed concern with the gold grind, and wealth level dependancy in the game. The above is a perfect way of lessening that impact.
You already removed EXP penalty from magical item creation, but In my campaign "things" are regularly used to reduce or cancel that penalty too.
Just last week my group killed a Red Dragon and used its heart as the main ingredient for a +5 flaming greatsword. The sword has history, it has a name (the dragons)... and it value to players. It means something. Its a TREASURE.
I guess Im just getting sick of all the dice rolling. Not everything should simply be reduced to a dice roll.
|
Yet another "have to remove all things negative" move that only serves to make PF more Blah then ever.Actually, this is the sort of catch that is the reason why we are doing this playtest. You should not be able to create spell trigger and completion items (such as scrolls, wands, and stafffs) without the appropriate spells... as that makes very little sense. The intent here, was to allow someone to create a gauntlet of rust without knowing rusting grasp.
That said, I am thinking more that there should be two types of penalty, a –5 for having someone else meet the prereq, and a significantly higher penalty for not meeting the prereq at all.
Thoughts?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo PublishingPS: Kong, you really should try to work with the playtest here instead of against it. This is the first time anyone outside Paizo has seen these rules and we knew there were going to be some changes, but your tone is not very helpful.
I will be the first too admit... I can get quite passionate about things, expecailly things that burn my briches.
I dont think someone should be able to create a guantlet of rust, without first knowing about the rusting grasp spell. Hand waving this sort of thing with a simple skill roll, lessens it and removes the reward of something achieved.
Can't a player already make a Spellcraft check of DC 15 + spell level to recognize a spell as it is cast? Isn't this really the same thing as knowing the spell?
This kind of hand-waving has already been going on since 3.0. The new magic item rules don't make it worse.
|
I will be the first too admit... I can get quite passionate about things, expecailly things that burn my briches.I dont think someone should be able to create a guantlet of rust, without first knowing about the rusting grasp spell. Hand waving this sort of thing with a simple skill roll, lessens it and removes the reward of something achieved.
Plus it puts more "mechanics" cogs into the machine, and having to balance them. Might work great for these magic items, but its over or under balanced for these magical items. It lessens the backwards compatibility even more... forcing the GM to rework all other non PF magic items yet again.
I can whole heartedly agree, if you see prerequisites as they are a bad thing, and you want a work around and other option. Thats awesome, Im all for that. But lets create something that puts something into the game, not take something out of the game.
An idea that puts something into the game, and lets players work around Prereq. is instead of replacing the need...
Wow, very passionate! You know, I agree with you Kong. Would there be a simplistic way of stating this in the rulebook without taking up much space, or at least, no more space than the current rules? I'd be all for it, but something like what you propose could potentially take up its own chapter entirely. Perhaps, instead of a -5 penalty for not having the prereq., make it mandatory to meet the prereq. in some way, with a modifier ranging from a -5 penalty to a +5 bonus, depending on the rarity of the 'thing' acting as a prereq.
Aside from that, i think the base DC should be 10, instead of 5 plus caster level..
So, something like:
Crafter uses someone else to fill in a spell requirement: +2
Crafter ignores a requirement entirely: +5
Requirement ignored is for a spell completion or spell trigger item: +5Those being modifications to the DC to create it. So let's use a Wand of Fireball or Belt of Dexterity +2 as an example.
Wand of Fireball - Base DC 10 (5 + caster level 5)
If crafter has another wizard/sorc expend a fireball spell each day of crafting for him: DC 12
If crafter ignores the Fireball spell requirement entirely: DC 20Belt of Dexterity +2 - Base DC 13 (5 + caster level 8)
If crafter has another caster expend a Cat's Grace slot each day of crafting: DC 15
If crafter ignores the Cat's Grace requirement entirely: DC 18I'm all for more modifiers to help clarify things.
This is really good - I don't think that simply having someone help should be a huge burden - cooperation is a good thing - so +2 is reasonable.
I think an additional +5 for "not on class spell list" might be appropriate - though we do have to remember the non-casters who will be crafting as well.
So a Cleric making:
Belt of Dexterity +2 - Base DC 13 (5 + caster level 8)
If crafter has another caster expend a Cat's Grace slot each day of crafting: DC 15
If crafter ignores the Cat's Grace requirement entirely: DC 23
And a Wizard making:
Scroll of Cure Light Wounds - Base DC 6 (5 + caster level 1)
If crafter has another caster expend a Cure Light Wounds slot on the day of crafting: DC 8 (easy, as it is currently)
If crafter ignores the Cure Light Wounds requirement entirely: DC 21 (5 + caster level 1 + 5 ignore + 5 spell completion + 5 not on class list)
The spell completion and not-on-class-list increases should not stack though (if there were multiple spells missing - another +5 is strong enough).
Wow, very passionate! You know, I agree with you Kong. Would there be a simplistic way of stating this in the rulebook without taking up much space, or at least, no more space than the current rules? I'd be all for it, but something like what you propose could potentially take up its own chapter entirely. Perhaps, instead of a -5 penalty for not having the prereq., make it mandatory to meet the prereq. in some way, with a modifier ranging from a -5 penalty to a +5 bonus, depending on the rarity of the 'thing' acting as a prereq.
Aside from that, i think the base DC should be 10, instead of 5 plus caster level..
This is very true, but you have to ask yourself. Why shouldn't it. Magical Items a huge huge part of the game. They are in every facet. You cant really remove them without restarting from the ground up.
So with that said.... why shouldnt they have thier own chapter for creation. Expecially if it adds so much to gameplay and enjoyment for the players. So many new areas to expand into, some many opportunities to excell and succeed, and so many stories and memories.
Everyone wants PF to be great, well so do I. Do something that makes people take notice, do something that says "hey, thats cool" and "Wow, they really did something thier" or better yet leaves them speechless. Do something different.
My grandfather always said, "If something is worth doing, its worth doing right."
They can still put "skill" roll in as an optional "faster play" rule, which is what it feels to me. If thats what they wish, but as a main rule... its just so blah... doesnt inspire for greatness.
Can't a player already make a Spellcraft check of DC 15 + spell level to recognize a spell as it is cast? Isn't this really the same thing as knowing the spell?This kind of hand-waving has already been going on since 3.0. The new magic item rules don't make it worse.
This is quite true. But it also doesnt make anythinge better, which is what I thought PF was all about.
|
|
This is quite true. But it also doesnt make anythinge better, which is what I thought PF was all about.
Can't a player already make a Spellcraft check of DC 15 + spell level to recognize a spell as it is cast? Isn't this really the same thing as knowing the spell?This kind of hand-waving has already been going on since 3.0. The new magic item rules don't make it worse.
My point was just against your original comment about how these rules somehow made the crafting system worse, how there was now less fluff then before. IMO, it doesn't seem like the rules reduce or improve the quality of the fluff any more than crafting worked before. If anything, I think the clarifications and flexibility help the system more than they hinder it.
Director of Games
|
To be honest, it was the old system that really did not work for me. There was no danger involved, not possibility for failure.. you simple pay the gold, time, and XP and then you get your magic item. Cursed items were never part of the system, nor were failed magic item creation attempts, both of which are part of the genre. The skill check is not there to replace any sort of RP components you might want to add to MIC, but such requirements are incredibly lengthy to code into the existing system (and they were something I thought about). In the end, a skill check was the simplest thing to add, since it is based off components that already exist.
Now, as for the prereqs deal, I am pretty flexible on this front. I agree that there should be stiffer penalties, but I am still for leaving the system relatively open.
+2 for assisstance
+5 for an item with prereqs not on your spell list
+10 for skipping a prereq
This means that a wizard trying to make a wand of cure light wounds without help would be looking at a DC of 21...
That said, we could move to say that the spell must still be on your spell list. This prevents the above named oddity. We could also say that the spells must not come from a prohibited school (in the case of wizards), but this seems punitive, considering the new school rules.
Thoughts...
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
|
|
Wow, very passionate! You know, I agree with you Kong. Would there be a simplistic way of stating this in the rulebook without taking up much space, or at least, no more space than the current rules? I'd be all for it, but something like what you propose could potentially take up its own chapter entirely. Perhaps, instead of a -5 penalty for not having the prereq., make it mandatory to meet the prereq. in some way, with a modifier ranging from a -5 penalty to a +5 bonus, depending on the rarity of the 'thing' acting as a prereq.
Aside from that, i think the base DC should be 10, instead of 5 plus caster level..
This is very true, but you have to ask yourself. Why shouldn't it. Magical Items a huge huge part of the game. They are in every facet. You cant really remove them without restarting from the ground up.
So with that said.... why shouldnt they have thier own chapter for creation. Expecially if it adds so much to gameplay and enjoyment for the players. So many new areas to expand into, some many opportunities to excell and succeed, and so many stories and memories.
Everyone wants PF to be great, well so do I. Do something that makes people take notice, do something that says "hey, thats cool" and "Wow, they really did something thier" or better yet leaves them speechless. Do something different.
My grandfather always said, "If something is worth doing, its worth doing right."
They can still put "skill" roll in as an optional "faster play" rule, which is what it feels to me. If thats what they wish, but as a main rule... its just so blah... doesnt inspire for greatness.
I agree with you wholeheartedly, it very well should have it's own chapter. However, i suspect this wont happen, purely because of space constraints. Nothing more. It would very much be a good idea if it were expanded upon in a later product, perhaps even a product unto itself.
|
|
To be honest, it was the old system that really did not work for me. There was no danger involved, not possibility for failure.. you simple pay the gold, time, and XP and then you get your magic item. Cursed items were never part of the system, nor were failed magic item creation attempts, both of which are part of the genre. The skill check is not there to replace any sort of RP components you might want to add to MIC, but such requirements are incredibly lengthy to code into the existing system (and they were something I thought about). In the end, a skill check was the simplest thing to add, since it is based off components that already exist.
Now, as for the prereqs deal, I am pretty flexible on this front. I agree that there should be stiffer penalties, but I am still for leaving the system relatively open.
+2 for assisstance
+5 for an item with prereqs not on your spell list
+10 for skipping a prereqThis means that a wizard trying to make a wand of cure light wounds without help would be looking at a DC of 21...
That said, we could move to say that the spell must still be on your spell list. This prevents the above named oddity. We could also say that the spells must not come from a prohibited school (in the case of wizards), but this seems punitive, considering the new school rules.
Thoughts...
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Is that "add 2 to the DC if you have assistance from another person"?
I would not say that Crafting is a fundamental part of D&D. Even in MMORPGs it is certainly secondary, and only then because the devs made the player crafted items better than quested items stat-wise.
Magic Items have always been a PART of the game, that is true. But those of us who have played for years still think of them as something you should quest for, or loot rather than something you make yourself. Certainly not a big part of the game. I would argue that you could play an entire campaign without a single magic item.
The system you are asking for would take more than a chapter, it would require an entire book unto itself. Would that make the game more fun? More realistic? Would you then include Fabrication Shops where Wizards and Clerics work around the clock churning out magical items for sale? My concept of D&D is that it is about roleplaying and adventuring rather than sitting around the {insert required shop type} producing items. Crafting (the system) elicits neither adventure or roleplaying. Pathfinders flavor comes from it's sourcebooks and adventures, not the revised SRD rules. That, and their strong rapport with the community. Even Ye Olde TSR was not this involved and concerned with how people felt about their products. Just some opinions. No digs or slights intended in any direction.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Since there is discussion of modifiers and setting the DC, I wanted to throw out another suggestion. Since you can now craft faster by increasing the DC by 5, what about paying 10% less in costs for +10 DC?
It should be a big enough penalty that you won't be able to hit the mark very often to save money unless you're quite good at your skill (i.e. high level), and at that point, being better at something should provide some concrete benefits. Plus, it makes sense that as you master a skill, you'd be more efficient at it.
|
|
Perhaps add something to reduce the DCs.
Like using a "unique" special item that is relative to the creation of the magic item.
Example, for a wand of fireballs, rather than creating it with a masterwork wand, create it from a masterwork wand taken from a forest that was destroyed in a massive fire.
This would be a DM caveat as to what would could for the reduction and by how much. Reducing it by 1-5 points perhaps.
Special items would be used to offset the requirement penalty. Using a bit of an elemental to create an item that grants elemental form is a good example.
Looking through it, I have some suggestions.
Remove bonus caps a la the Epic SRD only without the x10 multiplier. If you don't, please cap skill competence bonuses to +5, with a x10 multiplier after that. That makes skill challenges more workable.
Change the craft feats as follows:
Spell Completion & Trigger Feats:
Scribe Scroll -> Craft Spell Completion Item
Brew Potion -> Craft Single Use Spell Trigger Item
Craft Wand -> Craft Lesser Spell Trigger Item
Craft Scepter -> Craft Spell Trigger Item (two spells up to 7th level)
Craft Staff -> Craft Greater Spell Trigger Item
Craft Wondrous Item, Craft Rod, Forge Ring: Fold these together into one feat that includes Ability bonus (enhancement), bonus spell, AC bonus (deflection), AC bonus (other), Natural armor bonus (enhancement), all Save bonuses, Skill bonus (competance), spell resistance, and bonus feat (see below). Or you could split them into three tiered feats by bonus category.
Craft Magic Arms and Armor: Armor bonus (enhancement), Weapon bonus (enhancement), and all weapon and armor enhancement abilities.
Finally, list the relevant feat on Table 15-27. Assign each bonus type an item creation feat.
This will prevent people from using Craft Wondrous Item to create amulets of protection that make rings of protection pointless, or weapons that are also wands, without having forge ring or craft wand.
Allow the creation of items that combine feats, but require the prerequisite feats. For example, boots of teleportation would require Craft Spell Trigger Item and Craft Wondrous Item. A +5 sword that grants a Strength enhancement and shoots fireballs 1/day would require CMAaA, CWI, and Craft Lesser Spell Trigger Item.
Also, include "Grant Feat or Class Ability" on table 15-27 for items like the Ring of Evasion.
Forge Ring and Craft Staff are those mid-level/late-game feats, given the requirements. By that time most groups will have found a ring or two in loot and wouldn't have seen any real benefit to having their wizard spend time, money, and most importantly EXP to custom make rings.
The only times I really saw Wands being crafted in good number was when the EXP requirements could be circumvented (such as a base class from a popular setting). Actually anytime the EXP cost was removed and the time component reduced I tended to see more interest in item crafting. At least in my own games back in 3e/3.5
|
|
+2 for assisstance
+5 for an item with prereqs not on your spell list
+10 for skipping a prereqThis means that a wizard trying to make a wand of cure light wounds without help would be looking at a DC of 21...
That said, we could move to say that the spell must still be on your spell list. This prevents the above named oddity. We could also say that the spells must not come from a prohibited school (in the case of wizards), but this seems punitive, considering the new school rules.
Thoughts...
I think +5 for assistance would be better.
However, you should be able to create items without the spell on your creation list -- otherwise, a wizard couldn't make an amulet of natural armor, or a paladin couldn't make a holy avenger. How about an even stiffer penalty for spells not on the list (+15). That means the DC to make a wand of CLW for a wizard would be DC 26 ... a 1st level wizard *might* be able to make the wand, but it isn't a sure thing until about 10th level...
So, I propose:
+5 for assistance (another caster, a wand, scroll, etc)
+5 for a spell not on your spell list
+10 for skipping a prereq (caster level, spell, race, etc)
and wands, potions, and scrolls cannot be made without the prereq spell
I am for requiring the required spells to be on your spell list. This allows bards to produce cure wands, but not wizards. This would still allow an arcane caster to create magic items that he does not know the spells for, but at a penalty.
Divine casters have access to all spells on their list. So, the only time they will suffer that penalty is if they did not prepare the spell. This is a nice balance between arcane and divine since wizards can select item creation feats as bonus feats, but don't have easy access to spells. Bards have access to some healing spells, allowing them to make healing items, but not easily. Sorcerer's get left out, but they still have more options than before for item creation.
How would that then work for non-caster crafters using Master Craftsman to make non-trigger/activation items? I guess that feat could include language that allows them to bypass that restriction. Or make that restriction only apply to Wands, Staves, and Scrolls.
Certainly at this point I'd be more in favor of a higher DC for a spell not being on your list (if you have one) rather then an outright prohibition. It will be simpler to adjudicate in the longterm. It would also open up more healing magic options for parities that do not include a Divine caster (Druid or Cleric), this is a plus in my book.
Besides its not like there wouldn't be workarounds in the system. Given the easier access to cross-class skills a Wizards could take UMD and then use spell-completion/trigger items to cast the spells he needs to make the item. Suddenly a single CWL wand becomes 50 (or remaining charges) more Wands, with time and money.
Actually that brings another thought to mind... feat requirements, other then the main creation one. A direct example would the the Metamagic Rods, as it is currently worded a crafter could bypass those feat requirements at +5 DC. This should likely be closed.
|
|
Natural Armor is inherently inferior to a deflection bonus, so it needs to be cheaper. So what if it does stack with existing natural armor? How many PC races have innate natural armor bonuses over +4 or so (other than half-dragon monstrosities)? Natural Armor needs to be cheaper than a comparable deflection bonus, since it does not "protect" as thoroughly as a deflection bonus. Bonus squared times 1500 gp is what I've been using in my games for a while now. (1,500 gp for +1, 6,000 gp for +2, 13,500 gp for +3, 24,000 gp for +4, and 37,500 gp for a +5.)
Actually that brings another thought to mind... feat requirements, other then the main creation one. A direct example would the the Metamagic Rods, as it is currently worded a crafter could bypass those feat requirements at +5 DC. This should likely be closed.
Or carry a stiffer penalty. Remember, characters with the Master Craftsman feat will use these modifiers as well.
Still, I can see the arguement for items like the metamagic rods.
Natural Armor is inherently inferior to a deflection bonus, so it needs to be cheaper. So what if it does stack with existing natural armor? How many PC races have innate natural armor bonuses over +4 or so (other than half-dragon monstrosities)? Natural Armor needs to be cheaper than a comparable deflection bonus, since it does not "protect" as thoroughly as a deflection bonus. Bonus squared times 1500 gp is what I've been using in my games for a while now. (1,500 gp for +1, 6,000 gp for +2, 13,500 gp for +3, 24,000 gp for +4, and 37,500 gp for a +5.)
Agreed. Deflection bonuses apply to touch AC and against incorporeal touch attacks. Natural armor does not. A natural armor bonus applies only to AC and flat-footed AC. Deflection applies to all of them.
Amulets of natural armor provide an enhancement bonus to natural armor. The base cost should be close to the base cost for an enhancement bonus to armor. 1,500 gp times bonus squared works well for this.
|
|
How many PC races have innate natural armor bonuses over +4 or so (other than half-dragon monstrosities)?A druid in wild shape? Any sorcerer or wizard with a Beast Shape spell? The natural armor granted from those isn't an enhancement bonuses, so would stack with amulets.
Given that all the ability score bonuses from those spells are enhancement bonuses, I wonder why the natural armor bonuses aren't enhancement as well.
But compare that admitted loophole to protection against all touch attacks. For a spellcaster, true, an enhancement bonus to natural armor may be a bit better than it is for a non-spellcaster, but still, the choice between "AC bonus that stacks with my existing natural AC but doesn't help my touch AC at all" versus "AC bonus that stacks with my natural armor and helps my touch AC" is not a hard one to make at all. That's my problem with natural AC and deflection AC bonuses being priced the same.
|
|
That said, we could move to say that the spell must still be on your spell list. This prevents the above named oddity. We could also say that the spells must not come from a prohibited school (in the case of wizards), but this seems punitive, considering the new school rules.
Making the spell completion be on the creator's spell list kind of negates the idea of a non-caster (i.e. Master Craftsman) from ever making an item (since,in essence, they have no spell list0.
I understand the idea behind the skill check... it is reminiscent of Bruenor making Aegis Fang; no caster involved. I think that is what Jasoon is looking at. And the non-caster would still need Craft Magic Arms and Armor or Craft Wondrous Item, a waste of a feat otherwise for a non-caster. Maybe the skill check just apply to those two feats?
|
|
How many PC races have innate natural armor bonuses over +4 or so (other than half-dragon monstrosities)?A druid in wild shape? Any sorcerer or wizard with a Beast Shape spell? The natural armor granted from those isn't an enhancement bonuses, so would stack with amulets.Given that all the ability score bonuses from those spells are enhancement bonuses, I wonder why the natural armor bonuses aren't enhancement as well.
But compare that admitted loophole to protection against all touch attacks. For a spellcaster, true, an enhancement bonus to natural armor may be a bit better than it is for a non-spellcaster, but still, the choice between "AC bonus that stacks with my existing natural AC but doesn't help my touch AC at all" versus "AC bonus that stacks with my natural armor and helps my touch AC" is not a hard one to make at all. That's my problem with natural AC and deflection AC bonuses being priced the same.
The exact reason why Natural Armor is worth more...if you have +5 deflection from two items, you get...+5 deflection...while if you have a +5 Natural armor item, it adds with your +4 or more Natural AC bonus. THAT stacking ability, is why it's worth more.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
For the dust of sneezing and choking, should the Con damage be re-worked to fit the new poison rules of save every round until you make it? Something like:
Frequency 1 round (5); Effect 2 Con damage; Cure 1 save
Similarly, for the Potion of Poison, something like:
Frequency 1 round (9); Effect 1 Con damage; Cure 1 save
|
|
The exact reason why Natural Armor is worth more...if you have +5 deflection from two items, you get...+5 deflection...while if you have a +5 Natural armor item, it adds with your +4 or more Natural AC bonus. THAT stacking ability, is why it's worth more.
For spellcasters ONLY, that comes into play. Deflection bonuses apply each and every time, not just when a spellcaster can wild shape or polymorh into something that gives a natural armor bonus.
Stacking with the AC bonuses of innate or spell-based natural armor to determine normal AC but not Touch AC is just not as important as stacking with every class's AC and Touch AC. To even take advantage of it you have to have an existing natural armor score, or be under the effects of a polymorphing spell of some sort. To take advantage of a deflection bonus, you... need to have stats. No spell or racial pre-req there.
All I know is I want to have my Dwarven Fighter being capable of making a +? Silvered Hammer of Throwing and Returning, and then give it to his adoptive Barbarian human son.
...
There needs to be a balance between bypassing spell requirements so that non-casters can use the Master Craftsman feat properly and make items... but then not allow casters to bypass learning spells the normal way.
Whatever happens, scrolls will have to be disallowed completely, to prevent bypassing spell research. In fact, use that entry to point towards the spell research rules.
Actually... what are the rules for researching new spells?
I checked the "Independent Research" in the magic overview in 3.5, and at best it refers to the DMG for creating new spells. Which talks only about what limitations to set for the different spellcasters, and how to balance spells.
As far as I can tell, there's no hard, fast rules on what needs to be rolled or done to actually research a spell in the core rules.
Maybe if this were better explained, we could compare the magic item bypassing requirements on such things as a Wand of Knock for the Sorcerer, etc.
I must say that crafting a magic item ignoring spell requisites are not of my taste. I think requisites must be met in a way or another.
Like having a spellcaster using the fireball spell you need.
And by doing this, it would raises the DC by +5. No increase if you cast the spell yourself.
Also, DC 5+caster level is a little to easy. 10 should be good (it's an average roll, without counting ability and misc modifiers).
A friend of mine who love magic items to be rarer, would like a DC of 15.
But I like the idea that creating a magic item is not automatic, especially since there isn't XP cost anymore.
By the way, I thik that caster level 12 as a prerequisite for forge ring has always been ridiculous. There is a lot a rings with lower caster level. I can understand this for create staff, but not for forge rings.
Actually... what are the rules for researching new spells?
I checked the "Independent Research" in the magic overview in 3.5, and at best it refers to the DMG for creating new spells. Which talks only about what limitations to set for the different spellcasters, and how to balance spells.
As far as I can tell, there's no hard, fast rules on what needs to be rolled or done to actually research a spell in the core rules.
Maybe if this were better explained, we could compare the magic item bypassing requirements on such things as a Wand of Knock for the Sorcerer, etc.
That's a very good point. I think that it's because it's so difficult to balance non-direct damage spells, and is further messed up by the uneven power levels of the existing spells.
Direct damage spells are easier; just weigh the average damage per spell level (btw, Empowered spells are always better than non-empowered spells, at least for your highest level slots; for example an empowered energy-substituted fireball does more cold damage than a cone of cold. By that measure, empower spell should be spell level +3, not spell level +2).
Buffs can be measured by their impact on the level. Bull's Strength is a lot more effective for a 3rd level party to a 20th level party. So I guess the maximum level would be where the buff is useless due to enhancement items or just by having minimal impact on the existing stats. +4 ability bonus items become affordable around 14th level, so it's definitely a 6th level spell or lower. But finding where it's too powerful is a lot harder. Basically they grant a +2 bonus to all the things tied to that ability. So a wizard would either get +2 to hit and damage, or a d8 hit die, or +2 to spell DCs, etc. So it sounds like two free levels, meaning that a 1st level wizard is like a 3rd level one. Therefore, I think the 2nd level spell fits it just fine.
True Strike grants a +20 bonus for one round. In a four round battle you can use it twice, averaging out to +10 for the combat. That means the wizard fights better than a half-orc fighter with maximum strength and the weapon focus feats until 7th level, so I would say it should be a 4th level spell, not a 1st level spell.
But spells like Fly and Invisibility[i/] are a lot harder to gauge. Spells like [i]Grease and Glitterdust are even trickier. For example you can take out any land-locked creature that doesn't have ranged attacks, regardless of CR, by simply flying over it and shooting ranged attacks at it, because a natural 20 always hits.
This means that a wizard trying to make a wand of cure light wounds without help would be looking at a DC of 21...
That said, we could move to say that the spell must still be on your spell list. This prevents the above named oddity. We could also say that the spells must not come from a prohibited school (in the case of wizards), but this seems punitive, considering the new school rules.
I think that any Spell Trigger item (scrolls, wands, etc) must have the required spell cast once per day (or fraction thereof) of creation time.
This prevents case of Wizards/Sorcerers creating potions of CLW, but still allows for a Wizard plus his Cleric friend to make them.
1. Why are there no prices given for cursed magic items? What if I wanted to actually make one? How do I figure out the market price for a cursed item that I made?
2. It doesn't look like the errata has been taken into account. The table on page 19 says that for multiple different abilities you multiply the higher item cost by 2; but in the text on the next page it states "For items that do take up a space on a character’s body, each additional power not only has no discount but instead has a 50% increase in price." Which is it?
3. Fixing #2 would help, but getting rid of it entirely would be even better. Figuring out what are similar and what are different abilities is always a pain. Why not use a scale? Take every ability that isn't the most expensive and make it cost 50% more.
4. The addendum talks about the magic item's "slot". Maybe I've just missed it, but I haven't been able to find a table anywhere in the Pathfinder info that says what "slots" are, how many a PC has, or any other information about them.
5. Please, please, please remove or change the "Item Requires Skill to Use" and "Item Requires Specific Class or Alignment to Use" sections. It just makes PCs want to make magic items that only their specific class and alignment can use just so that they can get the discount when creating it.
A non-spellcaster with the Master Craftsman feat cannot create spell trigger or spell completion items, so not wands or scrolls from the dwarven fighter.
I am fine with them being able to bypass required spells and feats at a higher DC. Here is a chance for a character to forge a legendary item instead of buying one from a shop. Metamagic rods should probably be an exception to this.
Spellcasters should not be able to make scrolls of spells they do not know (or have access to). For other items, let them fake it if the spell is own their spell list. The DC should be high though. Besides, divine casters have full access to their spell list. They are not limited to spell's known or a spellbook.
I am fine with an item getting a discount if a skill is required. However, I think an actual skill check should be required to use the item (such as a perform check for some of the magical instruments).
Components.
What is the GP expenditure for a magic item but components? I dare you to argue that outside of a bizzare "Full Metal Alchemist" sort of world, you make a +1 longsword by setting the sword in a magic circle with 1000gp stacked around it, meditate for 2 days, and poof its done.
That 1000gp is components purchased that have bearing on the item to be crafted, out of whatever is locally available. Some diamond dust for hardening the blade's edge, some coals from a master smith's forge to represent the further forging of the blade, maybe even a small strip of gargoyle skin (or some other DR/magic posessed critter) to weave into the handgrip.
The solution to a LOT of the arguments regarding fluff or RP is the acknowldgement that they already exist within the mechanics. However, that existance needs to be stated. (Unless I am totally off base and the designer's don't see item creation this way and are going with more of a coin+ritual=poof idea.)
If it were stated in the description of the creation process, then that would give DMs the mental leeway to start accomadating that idea into adventure design. I admit, it does create a problem regarding treasure; if you make the monster itself part of the treasure, you have to compensate by lowering some of the actual treasure value, otherwise you risk excess wealth.
It can also create a morbid "chop-shop" mentality as well, but that can be avoided. Make it clear that "lesser" components are both more grisly and less effective compared to "higher" components. Example: The heads of Orcs can be used as components for the Bane:Orc property, and each head is worth 5gp for that purpose. So to get enough heads to add Orc Bane to your +1 weapon is 3000gp/5= 600 heads. That is going to be messy, and difficult. It would take routing two entire tribes to get that many.
But, drops of blood from a paragon of orcish power could be worth 1000gp, or even more. A 5th level orc barbarian could fit that bill, and all you need is the blood on your blade. Or blood from an orc with levels of Champion of Grummsh could possibly pay for the full 3000.
I've been using this system for a long time, and granted, I don't have much in the way of Hard Data, its all aproximations and guesswork, but my players love it. My current group is currently looking for some topaz that has never seen daylight to take to a mountain peak to expose to sunlight from dawn till dusk to make Goggles of the Sun (from the Magic Item Compendium).
But yeah, in summary, if it is the case, make it obvious what those GP are actually doing.
Oh, and because the rules for spell research are almost nonexistant in 3.5, and all we know is that it takes time and money, I am going to nick the idea of crafting a scroll to scribe into your book. Look! It takes time and money, and now you've learned the spell! Did you make your check? No? Wow, you scribed a CURSED VERSION of your spell! Think about the potential there.
The prerequisites need to be cleaned up a bit though. It should be noted that a prerequisite you "could" posess (wizard+fireball) is +5 to the DC. But a prerequisite you "could not" posess (wizard+cure light wounds) should be +20, the standard "impossible" DC. I can buy an archmage making cure light wounds potions. Why he's making them, I dont know, but I can buy it.
Question that I didn't fully understand. Is caster level a prerequisite that can be bypassed by adding on to the DC? If you can find some way to cast the spell before you reach the item's caster level, can you just make the item? For example, a 9th level caster can cast the spell spell resistance. Can he go ahead and make armor with the spell resistance property itself, which "requires" caster level 15th, by making a DC 20(all requirements) or even a DC 25 check (caster level is a missing requirement)?
|
|
That said, we could move to say that the spell must still be on your spell list. This prevents the above named oddity.
It also prevents people from using Master Craftsman to make anything other than +X weapons and armor; it pretty much means there's no way you're ever going to make any Wondrous Item with it unless you have help, which feels like it would completely defeat the point.
|
|
That said, we could move to say that the spell must still be on your spell list. This prevents the above named oddity.It also prevents people from using Master Craftsman to make anything other than +X weapons and armor; it pretty much means there's no way you're ever going to make any Wondrous Item with it unless you have help, which feels like it would completely defeat the point.Unless...
What if the ability to bypass spell requirements for +X DC was a function of the Master Craftsman feat? Unless you have that feat, you still need all of the required spells, no matter what the DC.
That could work. It might satisfy some of the calls for having MC "do something on its own"...
|
|
I do agree on some kind of feat consolidation. I see Craft Wondrous Items and Craft Magic Arms/Armor be taken a LOT, but hardly ever see Craft Wand get taken, and almost never see Forge Ring or Craft Staff get taken.
It might also help the DC modifier rules.
Yep, I agree. Craft Wondrous Item has also been taken a couple of times in my group, and Craft Staff has produced some really broken staves that should have never been created. I'm all for consolidation, but 'Craft Spell Completion Item' sounds... uhh... less inspiring for me. ;) Elondir, maybe they could be renamed?