|
Some Conjuration (creation) spells with a duration of Instantaneous are useful for creating permanant items and / or substances, and, in some cases, *that's their intended use.* Well and good.
Others, on the other hand, such as create water and acid splash, were created for a more limited effect (quenching the parties thirst, or doing 1d3 damage to a foe), and *not* for creating oases in the desert or filling huge ceramic vats with permanant acid (one 'splash' per round) to sell for industrial use to tanners, gluemakers and metallurgists.
I would prefer to see such spells not put under the blanket Conjuration (creation) / Instantaneous (permanant) duration metric, and having a set duration of some sort before the conjured substance dissapears (one minute or until consumed/expended, would be ideal, IMO, but 'dissappears at the end of the round' would be an option in one direction and 'one hour or until consumed/expended' would be an option in the other direction).
Acid Splash could easily specify that the acid evaporates or otherwise ceases to exist at the end of the round.
Create Water, on the other hand, needs to exist for some period of time, and I'd hate to think about what happens when the conjured water you've been drinking for days ceases to exist.
How about Create Water be amended to create only a quart at a time, regardless of level? It reduces the 'Oasis in the desert' problem, and also lines it up to perfectly fill a waterskin per casting.
Alternatively, Create Water could be left as-is (2 gal./level) but made a first level spell.
Wall of Iron/Stone is another problematic spell, IIRC.
|
|
Acid Splash could easily specify that the acid evaporates or otherwise ceases to exist at the end of the round.
Create Water, on the other hand, needs to exist for some period of time, and I'd hate to think about what happens when the conjured water you've been drinking for days ceases to exist.
Hence the 'minute, or until consumed/expended' caveat. If you drink it, it stops being water and starts being part of your body. Like the tissue generated by a cure spell, or created food, it can't then be dispelled or taken away.
Although a spell that would retroactively dispel recent healing magic would be amusing...
For Create Water I'd suggest 1 day/level or until consumed. Provisioning someone else for a desert trip, etc., shouldn't be too difficult.
Still prevents extreme abuses for the most part: a 5th level caster working 8 hours a day using constant create water for 5 days would create a bit over 900 cubic meters of water (about a swimming pool 7' deep, 16' wide, 30' long).
Checking d20srd.org for all conjuration spells with an instananeous duration, we get a bunch of healing spells, Acid Splash, Create Water, Wall of Iron, and Wall of Stone.
I might be alone in this, but I would like to the spell Minor Creation and Major Creation to have shorter durations with regards to rare/valuable items made out of vegetable material (just like Major Creation has a shorter duration with regards to rare/valuable items made out of mineral material).
E.g. spices would last 10 minutes/level, poisons would last rounds/level.
Wall of Iron: add in something along the line of “due to it’s magical and extraplanar origin, this material is extremely difficult to work with, as at times it will dull adamantine tools and at other times, shatter with the lightest touch. As such, it has no trade value.”
Perhaps also include a “luster” to the material, so that it’s origin cannot be easily hidden.
This would allow the spell to functionally stay as it is, but remove the wealth generation possibility as an ore trader.
Wall of iron could be fixed simply by giving it a duration other than instantaneous, even permanent would be a step to the right direction (permanent effects can be dispelled, and I for one wouldn't want my character's sword to vanish when in an antimagic field or after a successful dispel.
Another option would be make the duration long enough to matter in the short term (rounds or minutes per level), and let the spell be made permanent with permanency.
Another spell not yet mentioned is fabricate. Even though it's not conjuration(creation), it faces the same problems as the conjurations.
Wall of iron could be fixed simply by giving it a duration other than instantaneous, even permanent would be a step to the right direction (permanent effects can be dispelled, and I for one wouldn't want my character's sword to vanish when in an antimagic field or after a successful dispel.
I can't agree with this approach. It would have greater repercussions than just the wall. Sell weapons and armor made of this, cast dispel magic just as the battle is joined.... Replace a bridge with iron from this spell, dispel the bridge as your target goes over it..... I think it would add in too much of a complication/consequences.
Another option would be make the duration long enough to matter in the short term (rounds or minutes per level), and let the spell be made permanent with permanency.
Personally, I think that I would rather see the spell disappear than be changed in this way. It just doesn't feel right to me.
Another spell not yet mentioned is fabricate. Even though it's not conjuration(creation), it faces the same problems as the conjurations.
Not sure what the problem that you are seeing with fabricate. The caster still needs the skill to be able to use the spell effectively. If a caster wants to spend the skill points to be able to make MW items in a single casting, I have no objections to that. You still need the materials for the spell to work.
My problem with fabricate:
The materials needed for fabricate to function cost 1/3 of finished product's value. Generally one can sell their products at 1/2 price. Net profit: 1/6 of item's price.
By casting fabricate while having only a single rank in a craft skill and an int bonus fit for a wizard, one can completely destroy economy and/or break wealth by level guidelines. This is exactly why wall of iron ore trader scenario should be removed.
Example:
The wizard isn't even pushed to his limits while supplying quite a large number of people with armors. In practically no time I might add. Fabricate speeds up crafting so much that a wizard can accomplish more during his lunch break than a regular craftsman (say, a fighter of equal level with max ranks in craft) can in months of hard work.
I can't agree with this approach. It would have greater repercussions than just the wall. Sell weapons and armor made of this, cast dispel magic just as the battle is joined.... Replace a bridge with iron from this spell, dispel the bridge as your target goes over it..... I think it would add in too much of a complication/consequences.
If wall of iron had duration other than instantaneous, the iron would have magical aura. In a game that has wizards capable of casting 6th level spells so often that it has been turned into a money making scheme, it doesn't seem far fetched to have some casters check weapons for a magical aura that shouldn't be there.
As for the bridge scenario, it's not like there aren't already a myriad ways to do what that wall of iron + dispel magic can do. stone shape, shatter or disintegrate could do what wall of iron + dispel magic did.
My problem with fabricate:
The materials needed for fabricate to function cost 1/3 of finished product's value. Generally one can sell their products at 1/2 price. Net profit: 1/6 of item's price.By casting fabricate while having only a single rank in a craft skill and an int bonus fit for a wizard, one can completely destroy economy and/or break wealth by level guidelines. This is exactly why wall of iron ore trader scenario should be removed.
It is the DM's job to adjudicate this. In my opinion, there would not be a lot of people who could afford a set of MW plate in any town or city. Most of those who could afford one, already have one.
There will always be a way for players to become money making machines if they so wish to. The DM should be able to limit them from breaking the bank and abusing the situation too badly. I prefer not to punish everyone for the actions of a small minority of players.
An 8th level elven wizard has intelligence 22 (16 base, +2 racial, +2 headband, +2 from level increases). He has 1 rank in craft: armorsmithing. His bonus in armorsmithing is +10 ( +6 int +1 ranks +3 proficiency) Taking ten in his craft check he'll succeed on DC 20 craft checks. DC for crafting full plate is only 18. If the wizard wants to, he can even make the armors masterwork while he's at it (DC to crate masterwork items is 20).
Not sure that I agree that you can take 10 on this. Taking 10 is taking your time, making sure that you are doing things right. How are you doing that when you are casting a spell? The spell allows a craft check, but to me, that means one craft check, roll and take the result.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
An 8th level elven wizard has intelligence 22 (16 base, +2 racial, +2 headband, +2 from level increases). He has 1 rank in craft: armorsmithing. His bonus in armorsmithing is +10 ( +6 int +1 ranks +3 proficiency) Taking ten in his craft check he'll succeed on DC 20 craft checks. DC for crafting full plate is only 18. If the wizard wants to, he can even make the armors masterwork while he's at it (DC to crate masterwork items is 20).Not sure that I agree that you can take 10 on this. Taking 10 is taking your time, making sure that you are doing things right. How are you doing that when you are casting a spell? The spell allows a craft check, but to me, that means one craft check, roll and take the result.
ACtually, you can take 10 in this situation. Taking 10 isn't taking any more time than any other skill check, it's simply taking an average result when you're not under stress, such as in combat. You're thinking of taking 20, which takes 20 times as long as a standard skill check to make sure you get your very best result, and that wouldn't be possible with a spell, since it only gives you one chance and there's a risk of failure.
Of course, armorers who can make masterwork items would be... distressed. Apt to hire another adventurer(s) to take care of the problem. Along with the limited population to buy such items, I should think that sort of solution, which is not only probable, but likely, should help to take care of players seeking an easy way out to make money.
I don't have problems with players using their spells to make money on occasion. it's when they become abusive that you have to look at how it's affecting your world's economy... and who would be upset at their sudden status change. The world doesn't revolve around the players, even though they should feel at times that it does. This is one of those situations where reminding them it doesn't is okay, and even desirable.
The merchants and crafters affected by the PCs actions are exactly the kind of people who normally hire the PCs... and therefore it seems likely that they would hire a rival group, a more powerful group, to take care of their little problem. With guild memberships and other political considerations, it's likely that the crafters in this instance might even have the law on their side. Merchants tend to be a powerful political force, and certainly they could have foreseen this event.
At any rate... this is not a problem in the rules, but with players abusing a technicality. They should be allowed a small profit, but when that profit becomes abuse... then the DM should act.
- Ashavan
ACtually, you can take 10 in this situation. Taking 10 isn't taking any more time than any other skill check, it's simply taking an average result when you're not under stress, such as in combat. You're thinking of taking 20, which takes 20 times as long as a standard skill check to make sure you get your very best result, and that wouldn't be possible with a spell, since it only gives you one chance and there's a risk of failure.
I'd argue that, because it's part of casting the spell, it is a 'pressured' situation and you have to actually roll, but that's an unresolvable ambiguity in the take 10 rules.
Maybe we could just add in a line to Wall of Iron. Repeated casting of this spell may attract the attention of greater elementals, who get annoyed with outerplanar (to them) beings messing with their world.
No good. Some PCs laugh at limitations like that, because you're just marching XP up to them, and DMs give up in these cases because the 'attracted powers' distract from the main storyline.
Additionally, the PCs who laugh at the revenge limitations tend to be the same ones who like free wealth schemes.
Let's not get too focused on the armorsmithing example. if the crafted objects were wooden spoons or farming tools, the abuse would still exist. Full plates are used as examples simply because they're the most common way to explain how fabricate can be abused.
Actually, if we take a run of the mill 8th level wizard with intelligence score of at least 22 (this isn't hard to do, int 26 is achievable), he can reach DC 16 with a take 10, which is good enough to create most common items. This list includes:
- Every non masterwork simple and martial weapon that is not a mighty bow.
- Acid
- Every shield, and every armor except full plate and half plate. (These are also not masterwork)
- Every item that lacks complex mechanical parts. (For example, a bell can be made while a lock can't.)
Even if the wizard in question couldn't make any of the more complex items, this list in itself is large enough that pretty much any wizard capable of casting fabricate can turn it into a money making scheme.
Actually, if we take a run of the mill 8th level wizard with intelligence score of at least 22 (this isn't hard to do, int 26 is achievable), he can reach DC 16 with a take 10, which is good enough to create most common items.
I will play Devil's advocate and point out that he would need to be a 9th level mage, as fabricate is a 5th level spell.
:)
Actually, if we take a run of the mill 8th level wizard with intelligence score of at least 22 (this isn't hard to do, int 26 is achievable), he can reach DC 16 with a take 10, which is good enough to create most common items.I will play Devil's advocate and point out that he would need to be a 9th level mage, as fabricate is a 5th level spell.
:)
oh pulleze, a 9th level Wizard or 10th level Sorcerer and you are worried about 1/6th in profits? of wooden spoons? (or whatever)
if anything, after the second crate of 'whatever' the prices in the area will have dropped so low that the party will have to travel so far that all the profits are used up.
At 9th level the party Rogue is the money making machine in any area that is wealthy enough to buy huge quantities of 'Fabricate'ed goods.
even if they are aligned Good, there should be a caster present with detect evil to pick out the rich bastards to steal from.
.
the Iron Wall and suchlike being of permanent duration would be a good option IMO:
Detect Magic is a cantrip and anyone who buys/sells iron will be up to the trick of dispelable iron
and cast a detect magic to make sure he's got the genuine stuff.
The option to replace a few boards of a bridge with an Iron Wall is a creative use of the spell that can happen to anyone,
especially PCs that have used the trick a few gaming sessions earlier.
Not sure that I agree that you can take 10 on this. Taking 10 is taking your time, making sure that you are doing things right. How are you doing that when you are casting a spell? The spell allows a craft check, but to me, that means one craft check, roll and take the result.
ACtually, you can take 10 in this situation. Taking 10 isn't taking any more time than any other skill check, it's simply taking an average result when you're not under stress, such as in combat. You're thinking of taking 20, which takes 20 times as long as a standard skill check to make sure you get your very best result, and that wouldn't be possible with a spell, since it only gives you one chance and there's a risk of failure.
No, you absolutely cannot. Both Take 10 and Take 20 require that no ill effects befall if you rolled normally and failed, and in the case of Fabricate a failed craft check would ruin the spell. Thus you must actually roll the craft check.
|
|
No, you absolutely cannot. Both Take 10 and Take 20 require that no ill effects befall if you rolled normally and failed, and in the case of Fabricate a failed craft check would ruin the spell. Thus you must actually roll the craft check.
Actually Straybow the SRD definition of Take 10 is:
When your character is not being threatened or distracted, you may choose to take 10. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, calculate your result as if you had rolled a 10.
I can't find any definition for Take 10 in the Beta rules so I'm using the SRD in my game.
oh pulleze, a 9th level Wizard or 10th level Sorcerer and you are worried about 1/6th in profits? of wooden spoons? (or whatever)
if anything, after the second crate of 'whatever' the prices in the area will have dropped so low that the party will have to travel so far that all the profits are used up.
At 9th level the party Rogue is the money making machine in any area that is wealthy enough to buy huge quantities of 'Fabricate'ed goods.
even if they are aligned Good, there should be a caster present with detect evil to pick out the rich bastards to steal from.
1/6 * Really Big Number = Big Number
Also, I implied before that there doesn't have to be a second crate of wooden spoons. The wizard in question (wizard, because sorcerers have to actually spend ranks to do this properly) can flood the market with different type of merchandise every day. Also, after price of everything has dropped, the wizard can just teleport to a new city and start all over again.
Let's look at the bigger picture. If every 9th (I recalled fabricate was 4th level, my bad.) level wizard can flood markets with this spell, why would anyone pay full price for an item if they can get one from a friendly economics breaking wizard at half price?
The loophole is there, why should plugging it be left to each individual DM to handle, when fixing this spell can be as easy as changing duration from instantaneous to permanent or less?
The loophole is there, why should plugging it be left to each individual DM to handle, when fixing this spell can be as easy as changing duration from instantaneous to permanent or less?
The economics breaking loophole is actually that the players can sell stuff only at half price.
This might be OK for second hand stuff pillaged during adventuring, but for newly created items its bloody stupid (but see below **).Even if the spell is fixed by adding 1/6th value in diamond dust as a material component, the PCs are still going to sell new stuff at half price and can wreck the local businesses, it just takes longer if they produce it the hard way.
** I actually assumed that the other half to full price is the profit for the merchant (and taxes if they pay them) the stuff has to be sold to.
Or another 1/3rd is added as cost for the PCs to set up a shop in town to sell at 100% value.
you know:
No selling crates of stuff at any street corner: You got to be registered with the authorities.
Otherwise not only the local merchants guild will get down on you, like a ton of rectangular building things, but also the tax collectors.
This puts the the profit of the manufacturer at 1/6, profit for the merchant at 1/6, and material & misc. cost + tax at 2/3 of the value.
Is it really too much to ask from a GM to handle this?
Do you really want to cut and cull all opportunity for PCs to earn some fast cash in a few rounds for the sake of GM laziness?
What is wrong with the side quest "avoid the angry tax collectors or pay a huge fine" for those who go out of their adventure path to abuse the system?
.
back on topic:
it gets really interesting when Fabricate is used on a Wall of Iron, though any weapons or armor made from iron (and not from the alloy steel) are bond to be really crappy.
A shame really that the Rust Monster is not on any summon list, otherwise a few Iron Walls converted with Fabricate would make a nice Iron Bridge onto which it could be summoned
My problem with fabricate:
The materials needed for fabricate to function cost 1/3 of finished product's value. Generally one can sell their products at 1/2 price. Net profit: 1/6 of item's price.
The only benefit to fabricate over the normal use of the Craft skill (PFBeta pg. 58-59) is the lower time requirement and not needing artisan's tools. Considering a wizard needs to be at least 9th level to cast the spell, I think you're over-reacting.
I think this is being over-thought. Just add the phrase "Objects created with this spell cannot be sold" to any spells which create permanent items. There need not be any explanation or changes to the spells.
You know, wall of iron and wall of stone are essential to the economy of Sigil in Planescape. They make most of their buildings out of conjured iron and stone so they don't have to spend tons of gold importing building materials through portals.
I thought I had remembers in several places where spells like Wall of Iron and Wall of Stone were explicitly used to build things more quickly than could otherwise be done in older editions. I really don't have a problem with this, unless you are going to assume that high level casters are so common as to be willing to show up and cast these spells for minimal cost.
On the other hand, if you wanted to say something like that the stone or iron from these spells are harder to work than normal, and as such its cheaper to procure stone or iron from normal sources unless such materials are rare in a given area, or time is more important that cost, I think that would work fine.
I don't know for sure, but I have a feeling even a few established adventures probably have sections where they mention that a given part of this or that dungeon was sealed off by a wall of stone, for example.
By casting fabricate while having only a single rank in a craft skill and an int bonus fit for a wizard, one can completely destroy economy and/or break wealth by level guidelines. This is exactly why wall of iron ore trader scenario should be removed.
Exactly what is the problem with NPCs appearing able to liberate enough wealth from the PCs to bring them back to "Expected Wealth Level"? Or can the PCs just never be robbed "because"? I would think when they ARE exceedingly rich is the PERFECT time to get targeted by thieves...
It is the DM's job to adjudicate this. In my opinion, there would not be a lot of people who could afford a set of MW plate in any town or city. Most of those who could afford one, already have one.
Actually, this is my preferred solution. Don't change the spell at all.
Instead, have a chart for Population Size, with Items Available (by cost), and Items Purchasable (by cost).
A given locality can't absorb more than a given amount; Putting a number to it just helps DMs who can't say no to players without something explicit in the book. Since there's already guidelines about the value of items available to BUY in a locality , it's pretty simple & obvious to extend that to include the value of items you're able to SELL.
Honestly, if you can cast 5th level+ spells, why is it even necessary to make this crap and sell it? Couldn't you just use some Enchantment spells on these people with all this money and have them just GIVE it to you? SHEESH....
First off, weapons and armor are made of steel, not iron. Iron is brittle and heavy and is not a good material for making these things. Take 10 or 20 all you want: It's still going to to be made of a sub-standard materials and not a good substitute for the real thing.
Secondly, making dozens of suits of "iron full plate" will still take a very long time. Each piece of the armor still has to to be fitted to it's intended user. This means measuring, shaping and fitting all the pieces together using rivits and pins, forming that flat, iron wall into rings and plates not to mention cutting it into the propper shapes to begin with.
If a cleric wants to waste his time trying to fill a sandy hole in the dessert with water that will just be sucked up by the sand and evaporated by the sun, who cares? He's just tilting at windmills, and it will have no real impact on your campaign.
If the heros want to build a keep using wall of stone and wall of iron for the roof, that's great! It's not like they can carry it around with them.
Remember: All of these things can be detroyed by very mundane means. And if they upset the economy of you world with these spells, it could make them some very powerful enemies... (Heh,heh,heh)
|
|
First off, weapons and armor are made of steel, not iron. Iron is brittle and heavy and is not a good material for making these things. Take 10 or 20 all you want: It's still going to to be made of a sub-standard materials and not a good substitute for the real thing.
Secondly, making dozens of suits of "iron full plate" will still take a very long time. Each piece of the armor still has to to be fitted to it's intended user. This means measuring, shaping and fitting all the pieces together using rivits and pins, forming that flat, iron wall into rings and plates not to mention cutting it into the propper shapes to begin with.
I am with Jake_Raven on this.
The wall of iron is not much of an issue. If you think about it, who is going to want to go through the hassle of reducing it to manageable chunks. A wall of iron is a minimum of 5.5 inches thick and 5' wide at its narrowest and 110' long (since the beta lists the thickness at 1/2 inch per level if you choose to double the area, assuming 11th level caster)or 1' thick by 5' by 55'. I seriously doubt anyone would buy it since most forges would not a have furnace with an opening anywhere near that size.Either they would need to find the magical equivalent of an industrial plasma cutter or the PCs would have to build a forging operation on a scale orders of magnitude larger than any likely found in a campaign just to process the stuff into anything useful. Pure iron isn't really much use to anyone unless you just need a heavy object.
I will play Devil's advocate...
Hey, that's my job!
And a point unrelated to the post I just quoted:
Does anyone else find it amazing that the second post in this thread is a request by the game designer for specific feedback, giving people an opportunity to influence game mechanics, yet most posters in this thread choose to ignore that request and instead discuss house rules and economics?
Does anyone else find it amazing that the second post in this thread is a request by the game designer for specific feedback, giving people an opportunity to influence game mechanics, yet most posters in this thread choose to ignore that request and instead discuss house rules and economics?
is actually your job as Devil's Advocate to point out its safe to assume that the request was answerd by post #6:
Checking d20srd.org for all conjuration spells with an instananeous duration, we get a bunch of healing spells, Acid Splash, Create Water, Wall of Iron, and Wall of Stone.
Prestidigitation already states that anything created with it is pretty much useless
If a cleric wants to waste his time trying to fill a sandy hole in the dessert with water that will just be sucked up by the sand and evaporated by the sun, who cares? He's just tilting at windmills, and it will have no real impact on your campaign.
A 3rd level cleric can summon nearly thirty thousand gallons in eight hours of work. It might not quench a desert, but it could supply a good sized village. PCs doing this aren't a problem, but the existence of NPC clerics with that level of ability mean that an oasis can be created anywhere.
|
|
One possibility is to build into the setting the assumption that magic has always been used this way to adjust prices. The cost for anything made of metal is assumed to already account for cheaply available iron, for example.
It's not like these spells came into existence a few days ago, in the game world, after all, so it's easy enough to just assume that the prices listed in the PHB already account for magical spells and fabrication techniques listed in the PHB.
Instead of decreasing the cost to build for items, assume that items *not* created through these magically enhanced techniques *cost more.*
One possibility is to build into the setting the assumption that magic has always been used this way to adjust prices. The cost for anything made of metal is assumed to already account for cheaply available iron, for example.
It's not like these spells came into existence a few days ago, in the game world, after all, so it's easy enough to just assume that the prices listed in the PHB already account for magical spells and fabrication techniques listed in the PHB.
Instead of decreasing the cost to build for items, assume that items *not* created through these magically enhanced techniques *cost more.*
It would be a fairly elegant solution to simply put a paragraph in the begining of the spell section, without having to modify the spells at all.
Perhaps something like:
As spells have been around for millennia, society and their economies have adjusted to, and actually expect, that spell casters contribute to the resource industry. The material effects of Wall of Iron are already entrenched in industry and are often controlled by mage guilds and/or governments.
I am sure that someone else will be able to state that more elegantly than I, but I think that it could address the "why aren't casters making fortunes and runing economies the world over by cast ....spell?" issue.
You know, wall of iron and wall of stone are essential to the economy of Sigil in Planescape. They make most of their buildings out of conjured iron and stone so they don't have to spend tons of gold importing building materials through portals.
I suspect that the cunning citizens of Sigil will somehow find away to adapt to this situation. :)