| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Choose one Craft or Profession skill in which
you possess at least 5 ranks. You receive a +2 bonus on your
chosen Craft or Profession skill. Ranks in your chosen skill
count as your caster level for the purposes of qualifying
for the Craft Magic Arms and Armor and Craft Wondrous
Item feats. You can create magic items using these feats,
substituting your ranks in the chosen skill for your total
caster level. You must use the chosen skill for the check to
create the item.
So, I take profession Mime... and now I can mime my way into making a sword+1, and I get a bonus +2 to mime.
I'm assuming the +2 bonus doesn't count towards the actual roll, because it specifies "ranks" as CL?
Shouldn't we specify what professions or crafts are applicable? After all, wizards specifically have to use spellcraft, we shouldn't let non-spellcrafters have such an easy time of it.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Well, "Mime" would be Performance, not Profession, but there's plenty of Professions that are equally unlikely. Bookkeeping, for example.
I'm baffled as to why this doesn't restrict itself to Craft skill. That is to say, to an activity in which the character actually makes a physical object.
And I'm curious as to what kind of armor a Master Craftsman in Craft (cooking) can churn out.
Ha!
"Profession"? Seriously?
I'd never noticed that before now, but you're right. Pretty weird.
Well, "Mime" would be Performance, not Profession, but there's plenty of Professions that are equally unlikely. Bookkeeping, for example.
I'm baffled as to why this doesn't restrict itself to Craft skill. That is to say, to an activity in which the character actually makes a physical object.
And I'm curious as to what kind of armor a Master Craftsman in Craft (cooking) can churn out.
Isnt it implicit that the only magic items you're going to be able to make are those that your profession would?
I'd allow a craft (cooking) magic item crafter to make those items which can be cooked (potions I guess).
Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but I don't see the problem. You can take profession (mime) and be able to make magical versions of everything a mime can make (ie nothing...) :/
Man, I could totally Profession(Bookkeeping) my way into making some +5 Tomes of Clear Thought.
|
I think it should be limited to Profession and Craft skills that are listed for magic item creation.
Craft (Armor), Craft (Bows), Craft (Weapon), Craft (Alchemy), Craft (Jewelry), Craft (Sculpture), Craft (Calligraphy), Profession (Scribe), Profession (Woodcutter).
The only exception would be for wondrous items. In that case, a person with 5 ranks in Profession (Mime) would be able to create wondrous items that somehow dealt with his miming profession. He could make wondrous item like the makeup of solid wall, which would allow him to wear a special type of makeup and create a wall of force using pantomime gestures. Cool idea! Thanks for the miming magic items.
I think that weirder crafts and professions would be okay for craft wondrous item feats. It would be the bookbinder who'd create the books and a cook would be able to create the svereign glue... depends on DM IMO
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I'd allow a craft (cooking) magic item crafter to make those items which can be cooked (potions I guess).
Sorry, Steve. Master Craftsmen can only make arms, armor, and wondrous items. So, I guess, elixirs, but no potions.
And swords and suits of mail, of course.
I think that weirder crafts and professions would be okay for craft wondrous item feats. It would be the bookbinder who'd create the books.
Bookbinding is a Craft, and I could see a master bookbinder making something like a Blessed Book.
Bookkeeping is a Profession. It's like being an accountant.
I'd allow a craft (cooking) magic item crafter to make those items which can be cooked (potions I guess).
Sorry, Steve. Master Craftsmen can only make arms, armor, and wondrous items. So, I guess, elixirs, but no potions.
And swords and suits of mail, of course.
We're not much into rules lawyering, so I may be misunderstanding the whole point of this thread (in fact I'd put money on it). Nonetheless, I'd still allow someone to cook a potion before a suit of armor. Is that going to offend anyone?
I'm still struggling to see the point. Is it really that big a deal they didnt explicitly say you need to be able to use the profession skill to make the item? Isnt that kind of implied?
and be able to make magical versions of everything a mime can make (ie nothing...) :/
I thought mimes could make those invisible box things they always get trapped in . . . and invisible ropes . . . that kind of stuff . . .
I'm still struggling to see the point. Is it really that big a deal they didnt explicitly say you need to be able to use the profession skill to make the item? Isnt that kind of implied?
Magic item creation doesn't actually fabricate items. You don't have to be able to make a pair of boots in order to make boots of speed. Presumably you just buy a pair of boots as part of the item's creation cost.
So, no, I don't think that that's implied at all.
I too (as a DM) would probably let an alchemist make potions with this feat- or at least introduce a new feat for potion-brewing alchemists- but the fact remains that by the RAW you can't. If you absolutely must dismiss that observation as "rules lawyering", then go ahead.
I thought mimes could make those invisible box things they always get trapped in . . . and invisible ropes . . . that kind of stuff . . .
and be able to make magical versions of everything a mime can make (ie nothing...) :/
...
Why aren't permanently invisible version of mundane objects accounted for in the "wondrous items" section?
I'm still struggling to see the point. Is it really that big a deal they didnt explicitly say you need to be able to use the profession skill to make the item? Isnt that kind of implied?Magic item creation doesn't actually fabricate items. You don't have to be able to make a pair of boots in order to make boots of speed. Presumably you just buy a pair of boots as part of the item's creation cost.
So, no, I don't think that that's implied at all.
I too (as a DM) would probably let an alchemist make potions with this feat- or at least introduce a new feat for potion-brewing alchemists- but the fact remains that by the RAW you can't. If you absolutely must dismiss that observation as "rules lawyering", then go ahead.
I've had a lot of this lately - I wasnt meaning to dismiss anything (I dont consider "rules lawyer" an insult - merely someone well informed about the rules). I didnt realise you could make boots of speed without being able to make boots (ie by buying them) for example. That's a failure on my part - not on those people who know the rules better. Apologies for appearing dismissive and/or superior... :)
Okay, fair enough.
Sorry, it's a bit of a buzz word, and it's hard to know how people mean it (not that my response was meant in a hostile way either).
I think it was the intent (or at least theme) of the feat that you manufacture armor/shields/weapons/whatever so skillfully that it has magic item properties right out of the forge. After all, the creation cost is a bit of an abstraction.
It does reference the standard item creation rules, though. And the way those work, a wizard can turn a masterwork sword into a +1 sword without knowing anything about weaponsmithing.
I think it was the intent (or at least theme) of the feat that you manufacture armor/shields/weapons/whatever so skillfully that it has magic item properties right out of the forge. After all, the creation cost is a bit of an abstraction.
It does reference the standard item creation rules, though. And the way those work, a wizard can turn a masterwork sword into a +1 sword without knowing anything about weaponsmithing.
You know we've never really looked into what the rules actually say. I just always thought you had to be able to make the item (or at least to be present while it was being made).
At least i understand what the question is now. Cheers
The skills for use with this feat are actually listed under the heading Magic Item Creation, starting on page 548.
I imagine the reason the skills used for wondrous items was left vague because, as has been pointed out, the actual skills used will vary based on the item being made.
The skills for use with this feat are actually listed under the heading Magic Item Creation, starting on page 548.
Creation of magic armor utilizes Craft (armor)
Creation of magic weapons uses Craft (bows) or Craft (weapons)
Creation of wondrous items utilizes an "applicable Craft or Profession skill check" I imagine the reason the skills used for wondrous items was left vague because, as has been pointed out, the actual skills used will vary based on the item being made.
Ah, that's interesting. Apparently a spellcaster can use spellcraft or the appropriate craft skill.
I thought mimes could make those invisible box things they always get trapped in . . . and invisible ropes . . . that kind of stuff . . .
and be able to make magical versions of everything a mime can make (ie nothing...) :/
Mimes = Cube of Force :)
Ah, that's interesting. Apparently a spellcaster can use spellcraft or the appropriate craft skill.
Yup. It makes sense, when one thinks about it; a spellcaster that also happens to be a master craftsman of some sort is likely to better understand how to apply magical enchantments to their craft. Possibly better than an average caster that doesn't know much about a particular craft or trade. Though, in all honesty, a crafting spellcaster should simply focus on Spellcraft. It's a lot simpler, and a much smaller investment of skill ranks.
Ah, that's interesting. Apparently a spellcaster can use spellcraft or the appropriate craft skill.Yup. It makes sense, when one thinks about it; a spellcaster that also happens to be a master craftsman of some sort is likely to better understand how to apply magical enchantments to their craft. Possibly better than an average caster that doesn't know much about a particular craft or trade. Though, in all honesty, a crafting spellcaster should simply focus on Spellcraft. It's a lot simpler, and a much smaller investment of skill ranks.
Yeah...but wouldn't that make one heck of an NPC...the master swordsmith...who just so happens to be an archmage level wizard...hate to be the poor thief who tries to steal from his shop...
So gonna hafta use that in my next game =)
hate to be the poor thief who tries to steal from his shop...
How do you think he gets the personalities for his animated swords?
Ah, that's interesting. Apparently a spellcaster can use spellcraft or the appropriate craft skill.Yup. It makes sense, when one thinks about it; a spellcaster that also happens to be a master craftsman of some sort is likely to better understand how to apply magical enchantments to their craft. Possibly better than an average caster that doesn't know much about a particular craft or trade. Though, in all honesty, a crafting spellcaster should simply focus on Spellcraft. It's a lot simpler, and a much smaller investment of skill ranks.
It's a bit vague, but for my game they can make the item themselves if they have the appropriate skill, otherwise they will have to involve a craftsman to make it while they enchant it via spellcraft. This way if you want solitude or secrecy you have to have the skill to make the item yourself. So, no making the "one ring" without winesses unless you can craft your own ring. Well, any witnesses you plan on leaving alive anyway. I also require the item to be made specifically for this purpose. It keeps it more interesting. And, it all makes a bit more sense (to me) this way. It's my believe you would need to lay the enchantment on during construction, as it were. ymmv.
It's a bit vague, but for my game they can make the item themselves if they have the appropriate skill, otherwise they will have to involve a craftsman to make it while they enchant it via spellcraft. This way if you want solitude or secrecy you have to have the skill to make the item yourself. So, no making the "one ring" with winesses. Well, any you plan on leaving alive anyway. I also require the item to be made specifically for this purpose. It keeps it more interesting. And, it all makes a bit more sense (to me) this way. It's my believe you would need to lay the enchantment on during construction, as it were. ymmv.Ah, that's interesting. Apparently a spellcaster can use spellcraft or the appropriate craft skill.Yup. It makes sense, when one thinks about it; a spellcaster that also happens to be a master craftsman of some sort is likely to better understand how to apply magical enchantments to their craft. Possibly better than an average caster that doesn't know much about a particular craft or trade. Though, in all honesty, a crafting spellcaster should simply focus on Spellcraft. It's a lot simpler, and a much smaller investment of skill ranks.
So, if the fighter is using his father's +1 falchion, you don't all him to later make that +2?
So, if the fighter is using his father's +1 falchion, you don't all him to later make that +2?
Hey, if dear old Dad's falchion +1 is not up to snuff he can make his own +2 one. I don't know, but I don't see magic as a "bolt on" type of thing. Again, ymmv.
So, if the fighter is using his father's +1 falchion, you don't all him to later make that +2?Hey, if dear old Dad's falchion +1 is not up to snuff he can make his own +2 one. I don't know, but I don't see magic as a "bolt on" type of thing. Again, ymmv.
I can kinda see your point. But doesn't that also (somewhat) mean that characters aren't ever going to get to attached to their gear, since they will always be looking for an upgrade *shrug*
And seems like that would really suck for the poor wizard with an arcane bonded item...since he can't enchant it at 1st level...he never can enchant it without replacing it...youch...
I can kinda see your point. But doesn't that also (somewhat) mean that characters aren't ever going to get to attached to their gear, since they will always be looking for an upgrade *shrug*
And seems like that would really suck for the poor wizard with an arcane bonded item...since he can't enchant it at 1st level...he never can enchant it without replacing it...youch...
I run a game where magic is a bit rarer then the norm. If you get that +2 or better weapon it's not likely to be bettered anytime soon. And if it is, that old weapon can be hung up over the fireplace as an "heirloom" or passed on as a gift to someone who needs it. The bonded item thing is new and I can see making some kind of exception for something that is essentially an extension of the owner rather than a simple possession.
I could see Performance (Mime) being used for a Cape of the Mountebank, a Hat of Disguise, a Rod of Splendor, any of a dozen gaudy theatrical items. It's not that hard.
Similarly, it makes more sense for a Lyre of Building to be enchanted by a bard using Performance (stringed instrument) than some random dude with oodles of Craft (woodworking) but no knowledge of how to play an instrument, let alone tune it.
And this is where each campaign separates into it's own identity. In my campaigns, magic items are rare, but for a very different reason than in yours. You see, in my game, magic items are difficult to create, specific critera have to be met in order for them to become magic. HOWEVER...
Once an item is magic, it will tend to grow with it's wielder. Half the time, when the party accomplishes a powerful challenge, rather than handing out literal treasure, I 'level up' a piece of their gear. That ring of protection glows as you feel the protective aura you'd felt when you first put it on return, a little heavier and stronger, warmer now, or your armor takes on a sheen of a new color and becomes a little brighter, or seems to suck a little more of the light out of the room, etc.
This way I avoid the whole magic item price dilemma. My PC's get their hands on the gear they want and it becomes their gear, and becomes a treasured part of the story. Heck most of my PC's have come up with unique names for their items by now, especially the weapons.
Exactly, every campaign having it's own "flavor". I'm fitting the changes in Pathfinder into a 34 year old campaign that has it's own identity. What doesn't fit ends up being houseruled or excluded.
Nice concept with the items and wielder being essentially bonded and growing together. Most of the magic items in my games have unique backgrounds / histories. It makes them more interesting than just a generic "+2 sword". Especially true of any weapons that have special abilities / intelligence or rarer wondrous items. Somebody made it (mostly in ancient times in my campaign -- when magic was more common) and they did so for a reason.
I'd allow a craft (cooking) magic item crafter to make those items which can be cooked (potions I guess).
Sorry, Steve. Master Craftsmen can only make arms, armor, and wondrous items. So, I guess, elixirs, but no potions.
And swords and suits of mail, of course.
Master cook could make a beefcake of bull strength...
I think that weirder crafts and professions would be okay for craft wondrous item feats. It would be the bookbinder who'd create the books.Bookbinding is a Craft, and I could see a master bookbinder making something like a Blessed Book.
Bookkeeping is a Profession. It's like being an accountant.
And filling your tax papers isn't magic? :D
And I'm curious as to what kind of armor a Master Craftsman in Craft (cooking) can churn out.
A "Sustaining Spoon", perhaps?
Seriously, I'm more curious about how a non-spellcaster can create objects which requirements include spells, since it's said that "the creator must have prepared the spells to be cast". Is it even possible to outsource the casting?
There's a lot you can outsource, and there's even rules for outright ignoring some of the requirements.
The base check to make a magical item is 5 + caster level of the item.
You then increase the DC by +5 for every requirement that you don't meet. The only exceptions being that you *must* have the crafting feat, and any spell completion items (scrolls, wands, etc) you must meet the spell requirements (although that can still be outsourced to a wand, scroll or other person).
.
The point of this feat is to make it so that a person who has spent a lot of time and training in making his crafted items, can make them magical without needing to have spellcaster levels.
So the blacksmith can forge magical weapons and armor without needing the spellcraft skill, or spellcasting ability at all. He just gets the magical components (the runes to inscribe, the diamond dust, the mithral and gold leaf, and the ritual to perform: words spoken under a full moon as you chisel the runes, etc), and bammo.. magical item.
I widens the range of where magic items can come from... so it's no longer the sole realm of hermit wizards in lofty towers handing out the special items of power.
Hephaestus can simply be a 20th level expert with the appropriate skill bonuses and feats.
On the one hand, the idea of using Profession (woodsman) to craft Iron Bands doesn't make a lot of sense.
On the other hand, after blowing a feat and lots of skill points on Profession (woodsman), plus the fact almost everything has a +5 'I don't have that' penalty to DC, and the guy still has to take magic item creation feats, why make someone suffer more?
I think the requirements entry of each magic item should include the following information:
- "mandatory" beside each requirement that is mandatory
- the skill to be used (especially for the non-magical crafters among us)
That would clear the previously listed issues.
About the skill to be used: we all agree that Master Craftsman is more a NPC-oriented feat, mostly because such NPC crafters tend to specialize and thus max out the one skill to be used. When it comes to PCs, we'd like to be able to craft anything we want (within the limits of reason, the rules, and the DM's approval). Personally, in order not to spend valuable skill points in too many craft or profession skills, I would specialize in spellcraft, with the added bonus of being able to identify spells. Strange? Yes. But it's the rule.
And I'm still wary of the "substitute missing spell for a +5 DC" bit. It's interesting, but not very realist, even from a heroic-fantasy-game-world point of view. I mean... where does the magical energy comes from? The wizards out there spend years of study to master those high-level spells, so how can a soldier hope to do the same thing without more than a higher difficulty rating?
Sure, I can think of explanations about "magical theory and its application in crafting," but that's only flavour from my demented mind, not an official position. As such, each GM would have to do his homework in order to answer too curious players.
Magic comes from the environment, and its curernts are shapeable through special training. Arcane spellcasters spend years of studying to learn to mold this energy through words and gestures. Divine spellcaster pray their deities for a bit of that energy to be shaped for them. Master craftsmen learn to focus to bring forth this energy into their products. Spending much sweat, some of these nonmagical craftsmen can even succeed in giving those products powers much resembling those wielded by their spellcaster brethren.
The world is magic.
I mean, all the wizard is doing is saying a bunch of words and making gestures; the wizard himself isn't magic, the power doesn't come from him, and it's not like he withers and dies in an antimagic field.
Similarly, a highly skilled smith can observe the supernatural features of materials, and learn to manipulate them.
It's very appropriate for myth and fantasy in general, that being wise in the ways of <whatever> can effectively cross the line over to magic, that knowing things, whether it's plants or words, is itself power.
Why aren't permanently invisible version of mundane objects accounted for in the "wondrous items" section?They are - you just can't see them.
I can't see what you did there.
Not sure why you guys are saying you can't upgrade a magical item with additional abilities. You certainly can.
Sometimes, lack of funds or time make it impossible for a magic item crafter to create the desired item from scratch. Fortunately, it is possible to enhance or build upon an existing magic item. Only time, gold, and the various prerequisites required of the new ability to be added to the magic item restrict the type of additional powers one can place.
The cost to add additional abilities to an item is the same as if the item was not magical, less the value of the original item. Thus, a +1 longsword can be made into a +2 vorpal longsword, with the cost to create it being equal to that of a +2 vorpal sword minus the cost of a +1 longsword.
If the item is one that occupies a specific place on a character's body, the cost of adding any additional ability to that item increases by 50%. For example, if a character adds the power to confer invisibility to her ring of protection +2, the cost of adding this ability is the same as for creating a ring of invisibility multiplied by 1.5.
Animate Thread!
Yesterday I looked at Master Craftsman for the first time and I have a question that wasn't really answered in this thread.
"You can create magic items using these feats, substituting your ranks in the chosen skill for your total caster level. You must use the chosen skill for the check to create the item."
It seems that you can use only the Craft or Profession skill you chose when taking the feat. So if I take it for Craft (weapons) I can only use Craft (weapons) to enchant stuff, even if you have Craft (armor) and want to enchant a chain shirt. I can't take the feat again for another skill, so there are two interpretations.
1) You can only enchant items you could with your chosen skill. This would limit the feat extremely.
2) The chosen skill replaces the skill normally used for enchanting the item. This just feels weird.... Wouldn't it have been better if the feat would just give Spellcraft as a class skill and let it replace caster level for the purpose of the two crafting feats?
The answer is #1. You can only enchant items that correspond to the craft skill associated with master craftsman.
As a sidenote:
As long as the person pays full price for the item I don't care how they got it. If they spent the 6,000 gp to upgrade their +1 sword to +2 and say they did it themselves sitting on a hill mediating the whole time I'm good with that -- mechanically the important parts were covered -- the item was paid for.
If they have the crafting feats then as long as the half price is paid for and they played a major part in the construction of the item again I don't sweat the rest of it too much (provided they can make their rolls).
Granted it asks the question, "But then why take the feats?" My answer is, "So you don't pay full price."
And you get to tailor the items to play to your abilities and/or weaknesses.
The answer is #1. You can only enchant items that correspond to the craft skill associated with master craftsman.
Thanks, I guess that means I will pass on that. Investing two feats to get at best a third of the use a spellcaster would get out of one isn't worth it.
I think limiting what items can be made based on the craft skill is excessive nerfing of the feat, and I can't see where it is intended RAW. Basically you are burning a feat to allow yourself to get a small portion of the benefit of another feat? Much as it is realistically weird to use Craft(woodworking) to enchant magical items, it is mechanically crippling to say "you have to spend two feats to only get the ability to make magic items that the GM decides involve wood".
As mentioned above, the crafter does not have to ~make~ the item in question - only enchant it. If they have figured out a way to use cooking to turn a regular sword into a masterwork sword, more power to them.
Now I don't really like Profession being a valid choice for this feet, but I also don't think Profession is in any danger of being an overpowered skill.
Why aren't permanently invisible version of mundane objects accounted for in the "wondrous items" section?
They are. Written in invisible ink. On invisible paper.
I think limiting what items can be made based on the craft skill is excessive nerfing of the feat, and I can't see where it is intended RAW. Basically you are burning a feat to allow yourself to get a small portion of the benefit of another feat? Much as it is realistically weird to use Craft(woodworking) to enchant magical items, it is mechanically crippling to say "you have to spend two feats to only get the ability to make magic items that the GM decides involve wood".
As mentioned above, the crafter does not have to ~make~ the item in question - only enchant it. If they have figured out a way to use cooking to turn a regular sword into a masterwork sword, more power to them.
Now I don't really like Profession being a valid choice for this feet, but I also don't think Profession is in any danger of being an overpowered skill.
Actually, after looking at the feat again, I think it works a little differently than we're assuming. MC just allows you to count your skill ranks as caster levels for qualifying for Craft Magic Arms and Armor and Craft Misc. items. There aren't any other restrictions listed. Apparently if you have Craft: Basket weaving and take MC, you can them take Craft Magic Arms and Armor and use it to make any weapon or armor. Who knew?
|
Professions as listed in the PF Ref Doc:
architect, baker, barrister, brewer, butcher, clerk, cook, courtesan, driver, engineer, farmer, fisherman, gambler, gardener, herbalist, innkeeper, librarian, merchant, midwife, miller, miner, porter, sailor, scribe, shepherd, stable master, soldier, tanner, trapper, and woodcutter
Architect/Engineer - Magically reinforced structures
Baker/Brewer/Cook - Magical consumables (Ooh, magic gingerbread men!)
Farmer/Gardener - Magic fields? Magic Crops?
Scribe - Magical tomes?
Tanner - Magical leathers, magical clothing (leather)
Herbalist - Magical poultices, teas, etc.
The others would be hard pressed to explain to me how they are crafting magical items...
Just what I would rule as DM...