I've been thinking about ways to bolster seldomly-taken skills. What if there were only one (1) item creation feat, "Craft Magical Item," that covered everything except scrolls -- but which required ranks in a Craft skill equal to the minimum level to take the old feat?
(etc.)
This would free up wizards' bonus feats for use on metamagic feats (which few people take, as-is), and would free up a lot of feats for clerics and sorcerers who are normally starved for them.
I'm not totally sold on this idea; simply putting it out there like thinking out loud. I wonder if anyone can provide feedback, or spot problems (or benefits) that I've overlooked?
If every Craft skill is separate, then you've just created a situation where a would-be item-crafter needs ranks in Craft(alchemy), woodcarver, armorer, weaponsmith, jeweler (for rings), and then possibly several others for various wondrous items (weaving for a carpet of flying, stonecarver for figurines of wondrous power perhaps, etc.). That's a respectable heap of skill points, and not everyone is a wizard with a large Intelligence bonus. My current cleric, while quite intelligent, has other things to spend skill points on (e.g. Knowledge skills). What Craft skills would be necessary for the crafter to use Craft Wondrous Item, which my cleric has taken?
If every Craft skill is separate, then you've just created a situation where a would-be item-crafter needs ranks in Craft(alchemy), woodcarver, armorer, weaponsmith, jeweler (for rings), and then possibly several others for various wondrous items (weaving for a carpet of flying, stonecarver for figurines of wondrous power perhaps, etc.). That's a respectable heap of skill points, and not everyone is a wizard with a large Intelligence bonus. My current cleric, while quite intelligent, has other things to spend skill points on (e.g. Knowledge skills).
I agree, this would make wizards the ultimate item crafters, and pretty much confine clerics and sorcerers to one type of item. However, I would go a lot further than Pathfinder does, when it comes to combining skills, because I honestly think the Craft, Perform, and Knowledge skills are far too nit-picky right now, compared to the juggernaught combined skills like Perception and Acrobatics. I'd certainly be prepared to merge some craft skills. For example, Craft (armorer) and Craft (weaponsmith) and Craft (blacksmith) would just become Craft (metalworking), for example. I might also combine Craft (tailor) and Craft (leatherworker) and Craft (weaver) into Craft (textiles).
What I want to do is give some of the craft skills a reason to exist.
|
The new feat, Master Craftsman, allows any class to make magic items as long as they have the appropriate craft skill.
Personally I prefer the crafting rules set out in Unearthed Arcana. I like crafting points.
The new feat, Master Craftsman, allows any class to make magic items as long as they have the appropriate craft skill.
And the appropriate crafting feats, if I understand it correctly -- so it's a massive feat sink from which you might never recover. My goal is to shift some of the feat requirement onto skills, rather than to look for more ways to burn more feats.
If every Craft skill is separate, then you've just created a situation where a would-be item-crafter needs ranks in Craft(alchemy), woodcarver, armorer, weaponsmith, jeweler (for rings), and then possibly several others for various wondrous items (weaving for a carpet of flying, stonecarver for figurines of wondrous power perhaps, etc.). That's a respectable heap of skill points, and not everyone is a wizard with a large Intelligence bonus. My current cleric, while quite intelligent, has other things to spend skill points on (e.g. Knowledge skills).I agree, this would make wizards the ultimate item crafters, and pretty much confine clerics and sorcerers to one type of item. However, I would go a lot further than Pathfinder does, when it comes to combining skills, because I honestly think the Craft, Perform, and Knowledge skills are far too nit-picky right now, compared to the juggernaught combined skills like Perception and Acrobatics. I'd certainly be prepared to merge some craft skills. For example, Craft (armorer) and Craft (weaponsmith) and Craft (blacksmith) would just become Craft (metalworking), for example. I might also combine Craft (tailor) and Craft (leatherworker) and Craft (weaver) into Craft (textiles).
What I want to do is give some of the craft skills a reason to exist.
Well, let's flesh this idea out a bit. What would your list of Craft skills be and what item creation feats match up with them?
Craft (alchemy)= Brew Potion
Craft (metalworking)= Craft Magic Arms and Armor
Craft (woodworking)= Craft Rod/Staff/Wand
Craft (jeweler)= Forge Ring
I'm still at a loss as to how to deal with Craft Wondrous Item. Also, how will these changes reflect item prerequisites?
I personally allow the creation of magic items with crafting skills, folding into them the relevant feats :
Alchemy (potions, elixirs, oils, ointments)
Archery (bows & arrows)
Armorsmithing (armors, shields, helms, bracers)
Calligraphy (spellbooks, scrolls, glyphs, symbols)
Enchanting (echantments into objects)
Engineering (devices, mechanisms)
Jewelry (rings, necklaces etc)
Leatherworking (leather armor, gloves, boots etc)
Locksmithing (locks, traps)
Runecarving (runes, glyphs and symbols)
Tailoring (clothes, shirt, robes, cloaks etc.)
Weaponsmithing (weapons)
Wondermaking (misc. magic items)
and some other...
Some overlap sometimes but that's fine.
The DC can be high, like DC20 +item level, but skills can be developped along levels so it's ok.
However the feats still exist. They are not necessary but they can help, as they reduce the DCs, time and costs.
I'm still at a loss as to how to deal with Craft Wondrous Item. Also, how will these changes reflect item prerequisites?
With respect, "Craft Wondrous Item" never made any sense anyway -- some are stat-boosters, some are single-use spells usable by anyone (essentially potions! -- bead of force, anyone?), some are basically armor (bracers), etc. So, to answer your question, there is not one single Craft skill that would apply. (It was never intended that there should be a perfect 1:1 match for skills and feats.) Instead:
Seldriss posted a very nice list just above, and seems to have similar thoughts about this -- although he has obviously gotten way past the initial idea stage.
Item prerequisites would not change, except you'd be expected to have sufficient ranks in the appropriate Craft skill.
If I were going to make a radical change to item crafting, I'd change it back to be more like AD&D: any spellcaster can make a magic item if they can meet the prerequisites, no feat required. Maybe add a feat that allows non-spellcasters to get in on the item crafting fun, too.
I'd also be perfectly happy to ditch Craft and Profession skills altogether. If your character wants to be a good chef, that's fine with me; I'll throw that in for free with your back story.
It could work, but not as a replacement system. As pointed out this would switch the burden from feats to skill points, which would be an even higher burden for the ones you were trying to help most.
Tons of flavor here though.
Honestly, Craft Wondrous Item is an obvious catch-all to take in all the items which didn't fit in the other categories. A lot of the current Wondrous Items should be sorted into other categories. For example, all of the Dusts, Unguents and Pigments should be put under Potions, the various robes under Armor and so on.
That said, the new Master Craftsman feat does a nice job of making it possible to have a fighter who can forge magical swords without years of training at Hogwarts.
|
|
OK, I like the premise, free up feats...
But since the Cleric, Sorcerer, and Wizard only get 2+Int skill points per level it can be a heavy tax.
Essentially by placing the crafting burden on skills it ensures that the character is either an item crafter or an adventurer. The shortest list showed 4 skills necessary. Essentially even the wizard with a high Int will have no skill points beyond crafting.
I think I would go with a single feat/skill combo.
Create Magic Item would be the feat and Craft (Alchemy) is the skill. The character doesn't need to forge the sword or armor or sew a jacket or make boots or whatever, that is part of buying the ingredients. Use the Craft skill as the caster level and to make your checks.
The shortest list showed 4 skills necessary...
...To craft every item imaginable. What this system would do is separate things out. You'd have armor and weapon crafters, and clothing crafters, and magic trinket crafters, etc. -- instead of one person being able to craft everything (unless he's a wizard).
My goal is NOT to make casters more powerful!!!
Part of the point is to make Craft (leatherworking) as useful as Perception, since it costs the same number of skill points (1 per rank). If Craft (leatherworking) were necessary to make all those nice stat-boost items and sacks and stuff, then its usefulness in-game would be dramatically enhanced -- and people might actually take more than 1 rank in Craft skills (which currently they do not).
I really like the flavor and mechanic of making skills more relevant to making magic items. The skills necessary are a bit rough if you're attempting to make a character specialized in item crafting, but that's quite reasonable.
Idea I'd like to suggest is a character capable of creating magic items can enlist aid from other people who have the necessary skills. Much like can be done with spells from other casters, a wizard could imbue magic into a sword as a blacksmith was doing the actual crafting. For many items NPCs could be hired, but for higher powered items finding a master jewel crafter may be an adventure of its own if no player actually has the craft skill.
|
|
The shortest list showed 4 skills necessary......To craft every item imaginable. What this system would do is separate things out. You'd have armor and weapon crafters, and clothing crafters, and magic trinket crafters, etc. -- instead of one person being able to craft everything (unless he's a wizard).
My goal is NOT to make casters more powerful!!!
Part of the point is to make Craft (leatherworking) as useful as Perception, since it costs the same number of skill points (1 per rank). If Craft (leatherworking) were necessary to make all those nice stat-boost items and sacks and stuff, then its usefulness in-game would be dramatically enhanced -- and people might actually take more than 1 rank in Craft skills (which currently they do not).
Ummm, then leave the system as is...
If a PC wants to make a certain item and doesn't want to buy the sword or armor or whatever, he'll need the craft skill to make it.
I'm trying to understand the rationale behind this. You want to free up feats, at the expense of skills... most classes get darn few skill points already, so effectively hampering the precious few skills received for feats when under the PFRPG we get more feats... is that the goal?
I'm having a hard time here.
I'm trying to understand the rationale behind this.
Mainly I'm trying to find ways to balance out the skills a bit. Right now we have two juggernaught skills: Perception and Acrobatics. Both of them are amalgamations of like 3 other skills, and both of them have endless in-game uses. On the flip side, we have a near-infinite array of Craft skills, none of which were combined, and none of which really have any in-game uses at all. However, they all cost the same: 1 skill point per rank. That REALLY, REALLY bothers me. More than almost anything else in the Pathfinder rules.
So what I propose is to:
(a) merge a lot of the Craft skills together (armorsmithing + weaponsmithing + blacksmithing = smithing, much like Listen + Search + Spot = Perception), and
(b) make them directly useful to adventurers. Choosing to roll physical crafting into magic item creation is simply a means to that end.
The flip side of that is that I've created a "skills tax" on item crafting as a side effect. That's fine by me, but I figured the caster-lovers would appreciate being thrown a bone in exchange. So I figured I could maybe save them some feats -- they won't be better off than they are now, but they won't be too much worse off, either. And THIS has the side-effect of encouraging wizards to take metamagic feats, without actually increasing their overall level of power.
Your example, and Rezdave's, and others (one skill and one feat, simply merge feats, etc.) do absolutely nothing to address the skills disparity, and also actively make casters more powerful than they are now by saving them a bunch of feats and costing them almost nothing.
Contributor
|
So does this system still require the other prerequisites for an item? Things like:
Caster level?
Spells?
Other stuff?
I'm just curious, because this could open the door for those iconic master smiths who *gasp* aren't spellcasters. May be something to look at. Then the item cost could actually use the timeframe given for the craft skills. It makes those experts work at it for a long time, but able to match what a wizard can do.
I'm just curious, because this could open the door for those iconic master smiths who *gasp* aren't spellcasters. May be something to look at. Then the item cost could actually use the timeframe given for the craft skills. It makes those experts work at it for a long time, but able to match what a wizard can do.
I hadn't thought too far into that end of things, but I like where you're going with that! Keep talking, please...
|
|
So does this system still require the other prerequisites for an item? Things like:
Caster level?
Spells?
Other stuff?I'm just curious, because this could open the door for those iconic master smiths who *gasp* aren't spellcasters. May be something to look at. Then the item cost could actually use the timeframe given for the craft skills. It makes those experts work at it for a long time, but able to match what a wizard can do.
I like this line... keep going...
|
|
I'm trying to understand the rationale behind this.Mainly I'm trying to find ways to balance out the skills a bit. Right now we have two juggernaught skills: Perception and Acrobatics. Both of them are amalgamations of like 3 other skills, and both of them have endless in-game uses. On the flip side, we have a near-infinite array of Craft skills, none of which were combined, and none of which really have any in-game uses at all. However, they all cost the same: 1 skill point per rank. That REALLY, REALLY bothers me. More than almost anything else in the Pathfinder rules.
So what I propose is to:
(a) merge a lot of the Craft skills together (armorsmithing + weaponsmithing + blacksmithing = smithing, much like Listen + Search + Spot = Perception), and
(b) make them directly useful to adventurers. Choosing to roll physical crafting into magic item creation is simply a means to that end.The flip side of that is that I've created a "skills tax" on item crafting as a side effect. That's fine by me, but I figured the caster-lovers would appreciate being thrown a bone in exchange. So I figured I could maybe save them some feats -- they won't be better off than they are now, but they won't be too much worse off, either. And THIS has the side-effect of encouraging wizards to take metamagic feats, without actually increasing their overall level of power.
Your example, and Rezdave's, and others (one skill and one feat, simply merge feats, etc.) do absolutely nothing to address the skills disparity, and also actively make casters more powerful than they are now by saving them a bunch of feats and costing them almost nothing.
Okay now I understand what you are wanting to do. Sorry, I was a bit confused. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your example, and Rezdave's, and others (one skill and one feat, simply merge feats, etc.) do absolutely nothing to address the skills disparity, and also actively make casters more powerful than they are now by saving them a bunch of feats and costing them almost nothing.
I'd rather just ditch Craft and Profession and Perform as skills altogether. That would address the skill disparity nicely, IMO.
I'd rather just ditch Craft and Profession and Perform as skills altogether. That would address the skill disparity nicely, IMO.
I dislike that solution intensely, because of people like my friend James and his character Max, who in D20 Modern kept his Drive skill maxed out because he wanted to be a champion race car driver -- not just a "good driver." He was happy to nerf some of his other skills to do so, and I made sure to have a lot of high-speed chases so that the skill saw a lot of in-game use, and it really added a lot to the campaign as a whole.
Taking that away and just saying "everyone can drive as well as they want to" really sticks a pin in a lot of enthusiasm.
So overall, I'd much rather combine and buff, rather than hand-wave.
I'd rather just ditch Craft and Profession and Perform as skills altogether. That would address the skill disparity nicely, IMO.I dislike that solution intensely, because of people like my friend James and his character Max, who in D20 Modern kept his Drive skill maxed out because he wanted to be a champion race car driver -- not just a "good driver." He was happy to nerf some of his other skills to do so, and I made sure to have a lot of high-speed chases so that the skill saw a lot of in-game use, and it really added a lot to the campaign as a whole.
Taking that away and just saying "everyone can drive as well as they want to" really sticks a pin in a lot of enthusiasm.
(a) Drive and Craft aren't really comparable (IMO) since one is an action skill and one is a non-combat skill.
(b) Even if I were proposing getting rid of the Drive skill, why would the result be "everyone can drive as well as they want to"? If the PC puts in the time and effort to train to be a master blacksmith (say) and has the aptitude to do so, why wouldn't they be a better than average blacksmith? That would be a failing on the DM's side. Was that how you handled it in AD&D (everyone is equally good at every skill)?
OK, I like the premise, free up feats...
But since the Cleric, Sorcerer, and Wizard only get 2+Int skill points per level it can be a heavy tax.
I think this approach is a good compromise, allowing EITHER Skill or Feat access:
Master Craftsman NO LONGER requires the Craft Arms/Armor/Potion/etc Feats to work.
The Forge Ring/Craft Arms/Armor/other Item Creation Feats still exist though,
so if you are a Caster with few Skill Ranks available, you can take these Feats (though since you actually suck at the relevant skill, you will probably need to buy the MW item to Enchant.
If you have plenty of skills, Master Craftsman allows you to spend only 1 Feat to create as many item types as you can invest skill ranks for.
If you DON'T have an excess of skills, you can take the Feats directly for the types of Items you're interested in.
....Whaddya think?
To address the original proposal directly, the bit I don't like is that it's "un-skill-like". By that, I mean that the skill mechanic is usually that you set a DC for a given action, and then whether you can perform that action is determined by the roll(s) of a d20. But in the proposed case, the mechanic is to set a number of ranks for a given action (craft an item), and if you have less than that number of ranks you absolutely can't perform the action.
Note that it also differs from the magic item creation rules where a particular item has a given DC, and whether the creator can make the item is determined by the roll of a d20.
But in the proposed case, the mechanic is to set a number of ranks for a given action (craft an item), and if you have less than that number of ranks you absolutely can't perform the action.
Note that it also differs from the magic item creation rules where a particular item has a given DC, and whether the creator can make the item is determined by the roll of a d20.
There's no reason at all why the idea under discussion shouldn't have DCs. This wasn't a finished product, just an avenue of thinking. DCs actually make a great deal of sense, and certainly should be incorporated into the model.
If the PC puts in the time and effort to train to be a master blacksmith (say) and has the aptitude to do so, why wouldn't they be a better than average blacksmith? That would be a failing on the DM's side.
I wouldn't have figured a Gamer's Den alum to bust out an Oberoni variant on me, but OK, I'll take the bait. The main thing: I consider non-combat as integral a part of the game as combat, and equally as important to have a system of adjudication for.
Two specific problems with hand-waving what you call "non-action skills" are that (a) there's no fair way to judge whether two competing PCs, say, can out-do each other ("I spent more time! I'm better!" "No, I am!"); and (b) there's no way for fate, as it were, to determine if the PC's latest effort is a masterpiece -- for example, in "The Prince of Redhand," the PCs must present Zeech with gifts, and the quality and uniqueness are assumed to count for something. When I ran that adventure, one of the PCs was a painter (very high number of ranks in Craft (oil painting)) who decided to produce a portrait of Zeech. Yes, I could have said, "you make a great painting, blah, blah, blah." But it made for a much more interesting session when the player knew that the character could botch the job, and maybe produce something that looked good to her, but would actually annoy Zeech. As it turned out, showing up with a DC 30 painting provided us with a "bar" already set for NPCs attempting to impress Zeech with entertainment to out-do this particular PC.
I wouldn't have figured a Gamer's Den alum to bust out an Oberoni variant on me, but OK, I'll take the bait.
I am not a "Gamer's Den alum", whatever that is supposed to mean.
The main thing: I consider non-combat as integral a part of the game as combat, and equally as important to have a system of adjudication for.
Does everything that occurs out of combat require a rule? of course not. Otherwise you end up with dumb rules about how long you can go without taking a leak or what's the chance of getting venereal disease from the girls at Miss Kitty's Dancehall. Likewise, sharpening your sword or making a few new arrows doesn't need a mini-game associated with it.
[T]here's no way for fate, as it were, to determine if the PC's latest effort is a masterpiece -- for example, in "The Prince of Redhand," the PCs must present Zeech with gifts, and the quality and uniqueness are assumed to count for something. When I ran that adventure, one of the PCs was a painter (very high number of ranks in Craft (oil painting)) who decided to produce a portrait of Zeech. Yes, I could have said, "you make a great painting, blah, blah, blah." But it made for a much more interesting session when the player knew that the character could botch the job, and maybe produce something that looked good to her, but would actually annoy Zeech. As it turned out, showing up with a DC 30 painting provided us with a "bar" already set for NPCs attempting to impress Zeech with entertainment to out-do this particular PC.
Now this is a good point, but I still don't know why it has to be covered under the skill system rather than some other system. I can think of two reasons that it shouldn't be:
- If it's a skill, then we get back to your original complaint: "If Craft (oil painting) is only useful once in a blue moon, then why should it cost the same as other skills?" You're proposing giving the ability to create magical paintings, although having a PC who carries around a crate full of magical paintings sounds a little silly to me. I guess it's a matter of taste.
- Rolling dice for a Craft skill usually isn't very interesting (under the current D&D/Pathfinder skill rules), except for a "critical failure" (which just costs you money). In your example, if the picture ended up badly, the players probably wouldn't have given it to Zeech, or they would have made another, better one (assuming they had the time). Maybe on a "critical failure" you could have it be secretly insulting somehow, but again that's making up a rule and we return to the Oberoni situation.
One thought that occurred to me was the idea of a "free time" pool which is a generalization of the Craft Pool idea from Unearthed Arcana. If you spend all of your free time painting, then you can use some of your free time pool to whip up a masterpiece for Zeech. And if you spend all of your free time at Miss Kitty's Dancehall, then you can spend some of your free time pool to get one of Miss Kitty's girls to get some juicy information out of one of Zeech's lieutenants.
Just my two cents.
|
Contributor
|
I'm just curious, because this could open the door for those iconic master smiths who *gasp* aren't spellcasters. May be something to look at. Then the item cost could actually use the timeframe given for the craft skills. It makes those experts work at it for a long time, but able to match what a wizard can do.I hadn't thought too far into that end of things, but I like where you're going with that! Keep talking, please...
Okay, taking a quick look:
Normally crafting gives you check result X DC in SP in progress.
A +1 sword costs 20 000 SP, so at DC 20 (same as masterwork), you would need 1000/check result weeks. With a modifier of +15 (a good smith, but not great, level 5 or so), so 25 as a result, that's 40 weeks. Seems reasonable. The DC could be set higher, but ironically that speeds the process up. Maybe set the DC at 20+Caster level, or 20+item bonus.
I'd probably add a feat, maybe:
Legendary Craftsman
Benefit: You can use Craft skills to create magic items. Use your character level as Caster Level to determine how powerful of items you can make.
Just throwing ideas out there. Spellcasters would still do this faster, of course, cranking out items at 1000 gp per day, rather than the 500 SP per week of the example above.
You're proposing giving the ability to create magical paintings, although having a PC who carries around a crate full of magical paintings sounds a little silly to me. I guess it's a matter of taste.
Dunno -- it worked out pretty well in the Chronicles of Amber, as far as I was concerned... ;D
I am not a "Gamer's Den alum", whatever that is supposed to mean.
Sorry; there's a guy called Hogarth, also from Toronto, who frequently posts on The Gaming Den. I probably shouldn't have assumed that was you.