|
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
In Chapter 4: Feats, the DC to craft a magic item is 10 + the item's caster level. In Chapter 15: Magic Items, the DC is listed as 5 + the item's caster level.
I'm under the impression that the latter is correct, as that is what it was under Beta. This hasn't been addressed in the errata yet, so I thought I'd get an official ruling.
Thanks.
Good catch.
Specifically page 112, and 548 (lower right of both pages).
I'd also say that, fortunately or unfortunately, the 10+CL is more likely considering that text is new, while the text on 548 is quite close to the Beta web enhancement, and may have been overlooked if there was a change.
I suppose we'll know shortly :) [and I can think of other reasons for the reverse.]
The interesting change is that the progression is now Success/Fail/Curse, instead of Success/Curse/Fail (fail the check by a little and you lose money, fail by a lot now and you get a cursed item). Both make sense in different ways. I think the new one makes more sense from a "let's avoid people feeling like they *have* to min-max to create items" stance.
Agreed on the good catch. It's not in the Errata as of now.
Going along with this, there may need to be some clarification on Master Craftsman on what a "spell-activation item" is. It doesn't quite match up with any of the descriptions in the Magic Item chapter that I've seen.
Was it intended to be "spell-completion item", or any item that lets you cast a spell X per day/uses/etc?
Going along with this, there may need to be some clarification on Master Craftsman on what a "spell-activation item" is. It doesn't quite match up with any of the descriptions in the Magic Item chapter that I've seen.
Was it intended to be "spell-completion item", or any item that lets you cast a spell X per day/uses/etc?
Probably spell-trigger and spell-completion. Same deal for not being able to craft those without the spell available.
This made it into the archives without an answer, so, <bump>.
The issue is still there in the new PDF version of 21aug2009.
Ah ha! - thanks for posting that there Roger!
Another change (sorry if this has been posted already):
In Chapter 4: Feats (pg. 112), the DC to craft a magic item is 10 + the item's caster level. In Chapter 15: Magic Items (pg. 548), the DC is listed as 5 + the item's caster level.
I'm under the impression that the latter is correct, as that is what it was under Beta. This hasn't been addressed in the errata yet, so I thought I'd get an official ruling.
Thanks.
I believe the Magic Items chapter is correct and the DC should be 5 + caster level, but I am still looking into the issue. Either way, this will be corrected.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
In Chapter 4: Feats, the DC to craft a magic item is 10 + the item's caster level. In Chapter 15: Magic Items, the DC is listed as 5 + the item's caster level.
I'm under the impression that the latter is correct, as that is what it was under Beta. This hasn't been addressed in the errata yet, so I thought I'd get an official ruling.
Thanks.
Still no errata or final clarification on this question that I can find.
With a DC 5 + item's caster level, the check is practically automatic even with an INT score of 12. It appears you would only run a risk of failure if you attempted to accelerate the crafting (adding a +5 DC) and only those with a relatively low INT score (12 would be low for a wizard) run the chance of creating a cursed item. I'm not sure if this is intentional or not, but I think DC 10 + item's caster level seems the better value if a skill check system is going to be used at all.
In Chapter 4: Feats, the DC to craft a magic item is 10 + the item's caster level. In Chapter 15: Magic Items, the DC is listed as 5 + the item's caster level.
I'm under the impression that the latter is correct, as that is what it was under Beta. This hasn't been addressed in the errata yet, so I thought I'd get an official ruling.
Thanks.
Still no errata or final clarification on this question that I can find.
With a DC 5 + item's caster level, the check is practically automatic even with an INT score of 12. It appears you would only run a risk of failure if you attempted to accelerate the crafting (adding a +5 DC) and only those with a relatively low INT score (12 would be low for a wizard) run the chance of creating a cursed item. I'm not sure if this is intentional or not, but I think DC 10 + item's caster level seems the better value if a skill check system is going to be used at all.
Having been playing a magic item crafter for little while now, IMHO the system works out pretty well. At first I thought the DCs were terribly low, until I realized that it is designed for you to auto-succeed unless you are over reaching.
Basically the DCs are intended to be low enough for you to take 10 on the roll, removing the possibility of a cursed item. For magic items you have time and prereqs for this is relatively easy. When you start cutting corners, however, is when the DC inflates by +5 to +15 or so, which most likely pushes taking 10 off of the table. Its at that point that you either wait for better conditions or trust to lady luck :)
All in all, I think its a good system that doesn't over penalize people for investing thousands of gp into crafting. Wizards who are scrolling spells are pretty safe from making bad scrolls, unless they have ignored their spellcraft skill and/or are trying to scribe at double time.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Was this the last word on the matter?Ah ha! - thanks for posting that there Roger!
Another change (sorry if this has been posted already):
In Chapter 4: Feats (pg. 112), the DC to craft a magic item is 10 + the item's caster level. In Chapter 15: Magic Items (pg. 548), the DC is listed as 5 + the item's caster level.
I'm under the impression that the latter is correct, as that is what it was under Beta. This hasn't been addressed in the errata yet, so I thought I'd get an official ruling.
Thanks.
I believe the Magic Items chapter is correct and the DC should be 5 + caster level, but I am still looking into the issue. Either way, this will be corrected.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I am not aware of anything that officially contradicts this.
Which, IMO, is very sad, since a base DC of 5 is too low. Any halfway decent crafter who is the minimum level to take any craft magical item feat is capable of crafting almost everything allowed by that feat without fail, just by using Take-10.
There is almost never any chance to fail, unless the crafter is very low level or has horrible ability scores or didn't put reasonable ranks into the skill, and even then, only if he's crafting very powerful items.
I know, I would rather error on the side of the players - nobody wants to put all that time and money into crafting an item and have it all go to waste at the end. So they set the DC so low that this will never happen, even if the crafter rushes the job of skips a requirement or two.
I just think they went too low.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I think its to easy we are playing some high level Pencil whipped characters and crafting with DC 5 is way to easy. And they can take 10 on it there is no chance of failure most of the time creating magic items.
Was this the last word on the matter?Ah ha! - thanks for posting that there Roger!
Another change (sorry if this has been posted already):
In Chapter 4: Feats (pg. 112), the DC to craft a magic item is 10 + the item's caster level. In Chapter 15: Magic Items (pg. 548), the DC is listed as 5 + the item's caster level.
I'm under the impression that the latter is correct, as that is what it was under Beta. This hasn't been addressed in the errata yet, so I thought I'd get an official ruling.
Thanks.
I believe the Magic Items chapter is correct and the DC should be 5 + caster level, but I am still looking into the issue. Either way, this will be corrected.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
This came up in our game last night and looking at the official errata it still hasn't been officially addressed.
Has anyone else seen anything official other than the above quoted reply from Jason Bulmahn?
Has this been officially addressed?
