Hey Paizo fans,
I have a question about the DCs and time requirements for crafting magic items. The SRD says:
* "The DC to create a magic item is 5 + the caster level for the item."
* "Creating an item requires 8 hours of work per 1,000 gp in the item's base price (or fraction thereof)"
* "This process can be accelerated to 4 hours of work per 1,000 gp in the item's base price (or fraction thereof) by increasing the DC to create the item by +5."
If you put the maximum number of ranks into the relevant skill at every level your modifier will be your level + ability mod (+3 if the skill is a class skill). Thus if you take 10 on the crafting check your check will be at least 10 + your level. If you do accelerated crafting, this check is against a DC of 10 + your level. Am I misunderstanding something or is it a good idea for crafters to *always* choose accelerated casting, since they essentially cut the time in half with no cost or risk?
I can think of a few exceptions where you would not want to accelerate, such as if you're raising the DC in order to skip one of the item requirements - say, if you're a half-orc crafting Boots of Elvenkind. But these situations seem rare.
Don't get me wrong - I think the possibility of accelerating your crafting is an *excellent* idea. I've both played crafting characters and had players who were crafters, and accelerated crafting would have been a boon in both situations. I just want to make sure I'm not misinterpreting the rules.
To continue the thought of faster crafting, what do you think about increasing the DC even further? Do you think it would be unbalanced to raise the DC by 10 for 3x faster crafting or by 15 for 4x faster? If you have a crafter with an ability score of at least 14 (+2) and the skill was a class skill (+3) they would be able to make a DC 15 + caster level check by taking 10. If you have a really excellent crafter (say, a higher ability score plus Skill Focus) they may be able to make a DC 20 + caster level check by taking 10. This could really allow dedicated crafters to excel.
I could be mistaken, but I don't think you CAN take 10 when you are accelerating the crafting. You can only take 10 when you are performing a standard action in an unrushed manner. This is why you cannot (normally) take 10 in combat on any skill test. In fact, class abilities and feats are the only way I know of to take 10 in a rushed manner. If you had a class feature on a class or prestige class that let them take 10 on crafting when they normally are not allowed to, then you could. But I don't know of any that allow that.
Still, accelerating is still useful, and not a hard roll if you are maxing out your ranks and getting skill focus and such. Easily could drop it to a 2+.
Edit : Partially Ninja'd. :)
I don't think you can take 10 on item creation crafting checks. The roll is part of what determines if the item is cursed.
You're thinking of taking 20, which you cannot do on checks that have a consequence for failure.
Taking 10 is allowed on skill checks any time you're working in non-distracting/dangerous situation.
Taking 10: When your character is not in immediate danger 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. For many routine tasks, taking 10 makes them automatically successful. Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10. In most cases, taking 10 is purely a safety measure—you know (or expect) that an average roll will succeed but fear that a poor roll might fail, so you elect to settle for the average roll (a 10). Taking 10 is especially useful in situations where a particularly high roll wouldn't help.
Since there's nothing in the Magic item creation section that says you can't take 10 (that I found at least) and it's based on a skill check now... I don't see why a caster couldn't do this.
Danger or threat that distracts you from work. There's nothing about the possibility of accidentally creating a cursed item that distracts you from the work as it is happening, that's just a consequence of failure.
I doubt the magic creation rules were written with the assumption that you can take 10, but reading that into "immediate danger or distraction" is just a stretch.
Magic Item Creation
To create magic items, spellcasters use special feats which allow them to invest time and money in an item's creation. At the end of this process, the spellcaster must make a single skill check (usually Spellcraft, but sometimes another skill) to finish the item. If an item type has multiple possible skills, you choose which skill to make the check with. The DC to create a magic item is 5 + the caster level for the item. errata?. Failing this check means that the item does not function and the materials and time are wasted. Failing this check by 5 or more results in a cursed item (see Cursed Items for more information).
Their are time where rolling a one I still pass by 10, where is the threat there?
dndculix: I and many others would not allow taking 10 on item crafting checks, for many of the reasons above. I find it terribly against the spirit of the rules, which is that there is a chance of failure, and a chance of cursing. Those are virtually completely eliminate with allowing take 10 (since very very rarely will anyone try to craft anything that has a DC high enough that 10 won't be sufficient).
However, to your question, yes, there are times where (even taking 10) you wouldn't accelerate. The "5 + Caster Level" of the DC is the *item's* caster level, not *your* caster level.
For instance, crafting a Pearl of Power is DC 22 (5 + CL 17). A 10th level caster with +15 could take 10 (if that were allowed) and succeed, but accelerated would fail. The caster would face the same DC when trying to make a Ioun Stone (5 + CL 12 + 5 for not meeting the explicit caster level requirement).
Most of the time, my party accelerates anything they will make auto on a 1 (or maybe 2-3). Otherwise, no.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
This also assumes that the crafter has maxed out spellcraft. There are some casters who might not and therefore can't rist accelerating. In addition, you can have casters who don't have any or all of the spells needed to create an item and have to skip one or more of them adding additional +5s to the DC. Especially for a caster with a limited set of spells known like a bard or sorcerer this can happen more often. Not to mention some items that could need spells from multiple spell lists.
dndculix: I and many others would not allow taking 10 on item crafting checks, for many of the reasons above. I find it terribly against the spirit of the rules, which is that there is a chance of failure, and a chance of cursing.
How many fumbles were rolled in the training of your warrior? How many of your NPC's rolled their bluff\sense motive when interacting with each other. When the spellcaster buys\collects all his components (They do document each component don't they?) how many are fresh, useful, and not counterfeit?
From the SRD:
Take 10 - To reduce the chances of failure on certain skill checks by assuming an average die roll result (10 on a d20 roll). You can't take 10 if distracted or threatened, such as during combat.
It takes a feat, training, preparation, a safe and secure place, and player investment to craft. These efforts only come into play if you can actually make something.
Taking 10 is the only reasonable way to craft IMHO. You are showing your professionalism with the process and exercising due caution. With foresight you guarantee yourself 50% on the roll. Making 50% always succeed is the difference between luck and training.
I think not allowing 10 on a craft check is basically saying 'don't craft'.
Curses happen, when you're rushed, working without a lab, working under duress or aiming above your skill level... ie when taking 10 doesn't apply or won't work.
Sigurd
PS. Thanks for the link DM_Blake :)
Since we're chatting on an 8-month-old thread here, I'll chime in.
I don't like taking-10 on magic item creation and I said so on a much more recent thread. But James Jacobs replied to me justifying the reasons for doing so. Since he gave his justification on a thread about taking-10 on magic item creation, I'll take that as the boss-man condoning taking-10 to create magic items.
Here is the thread: So apparently this is all kosher, but I still don't like it for my game.
The GM in my game where I play a crafter, has the rule that a 1 always fails. My wizard would not craft an item where he would have the chance to fail by 5 or more so we said that if I rolled a 1 the item would be cursed. This is the only reason the GM woudn't allow me to take 10 on the crafting check.
If you can't take 10 for accelerate crafting, high level magic items can take almost a year of work.
Furthermore, while it is an advantage for wizards, which have high intelligence scores and a good ammount of skill points to spend; getting a high bonus for that use hurts if you are a sorcerer or cleric. Let the wizard enjoy his advantages.
If you can't take 10 for accelerate crafting, high level magic items can take almost a year of work.
Furthermore, while it is an advantage for wizards, which have high intelligence scores and a good ammount of skill points to spend; getting a high bonus for that use hurts if you are a sorcerer or cleric. Let the wizard enjoy his advantages.
When you craft magic items you only need to make one crafting check at the end of the time. It only takes one day per 1000gp or 2000gp if you accelerate. Unlike the craft skill in which you have to make a check every day.
When you craft magic items you only need to make one crafting check at the end of the time. It only takes one day per 1000gp or 2000gp if you accelerate. Unlike the craft skill in which you have to make a check every day.
Yes, item prices for 20th level characters go from about 100000 to 235000 gp, so we are talking a lot of uninterrumped time needed to make high level items, each level.
I think it comes down to how you view magic item creation.
If every magic item is a unique piece requiring skill to apply new concepts in new ways, and there are no guarantees your efforts will work at all, then then a Take 10 is not appropriate. Sometimes you do everything right and luck is not with you; oops.
However, if magic items are formulaic, that is, every time you put X,Y,Z into a pot, simmer on medium heat for 15 minutes, and immediately pour into glass vials with mint leaves at the bottom ... you wind up with a batch of healing potions ... then a Take 10 is very appropriate.
In the latter case, there is a standard (fixed) process that can be refined and improved. The more ranks you have, the more effort you've put into creating checklists, identifying good/bad ingredients/vessels/tools, creating little heat level and timer cantrips to make your work very precise, etc.
If you're not dodging arrows while doing it, there's no reason you can't follow the directions you've written out for yourself and already done a hundred times before.
-----
In my game, the RAW says Take 10 on crafting is allowed, so it is. At least until the players decide to vote to house-rule it away.
In my game, the RAW says Take 10 on crafting is allowed, so it is. At least until the players decide to vote to house-rule it away.
Yeah, pretty much the same here too.
For me, the problem isn't with the item crafting rules, it's with Take-10 in general:
Fred wants to do something. Anything. Doesn't matter what it is. But for this thing, Fred has a 45% chance to fail. If he fails, bad stuff could happen. So, Fred has two choices:
1. Pick up the d20 and roll. There is a 45% chance for that bad stuff. If Fred is dumb enough to do this, then he deserves to fail.
or
2. Just say "I Take-10!" and now Fred has a 0% chance to fail. If Fred has half a brain, he will always do this.
One simple little rule goes from 45% chance to fail, down to ZERO% chance to fail. And the worst part is that this improved chance doesn't have anything to do with Fred learning more, or trying harder, or getting help, or in some being smarter or more careful or better prepared.
Nope.
Fred eliminates ALL risk by putting down his d20 and taking the easy way out.
To me, that seems wrong. Not to mention, very ironic for a game called the "d20 system" (or in this case, a game that evolved from the "d20 system").
Sorry.
/rant off
My houserule is that 1 always makes a cursed item, 20 makes an extra powerful one. So when you make an item you always have to roll.
I'm considering doing the same thing. It should make stuff a lot more interesting.
Accellerated item creation is not routine work, so on accelerated i Would not allow a take 10. When it is not possible to make a cursed item, (there is no way a character can fail with 5 or more). I would allow it.
|
I'm perfectly fine with item creation allowing take 10. Whether or not take 10 is good in general is another thing, but on item creation I am fine with it. If they invest the ranks, the feat, the time, and pay the cost, I think it's good for them to get the pay-off.
The trouble is taking 10 lets them make items they have no right making by CL with no risk. Course the CL is off severly in most cases...but that is another issue. When making something that you have all the pre-req for you can generally take 1 and make it. Accelerating, not having pre-req or not being the proper CL SHOULD have some danger to it.
As for my houserule, it is partialy to enforce a roll at all times...and mostly, my players actually like the small amount of gambling involved.
|
I guess I'm mostly kin to it because in 3.5, there was never a risk. You always were 100% successful at crafting if you invested the time and money. I suppose I could see a rule being necessary in Pathfinder if they sped up the time or were missing some requirements, but if someone has the spells, the money, the feat, and the time... I'm ok with a 100% success rate.
|
|
I guess I'm mostly kin to it because in 3.5, there was never a risk. You always were 100% successful at crafting if you invested the time and money. I suppose I could see a rule being necessary in Pathfinder if they sped up the time or were missing some requirements, but if someone has the spells, the money, the feat, and the time... I'm ok with a 100% success rate.
Which by the core rule you are...mostly. You can pretty much take 1 and get it if you actually meet all the requirments and CL. The only time you would really have to take 10 is you didn't have the CL, or a req, or accelerating and didn't wanna risk it...which is why I have an issue with taking 10 in this case.
|
|
Which by the core rule you are...mostly. You can pretty much take 1 and get it if you actually meet all the requirments and CL. The only time you would really have to take 10 is you didn't have the CL, or a req, or accelerating and didn't wanna risk it...which is why I have an issue with taking 10 in this case.Sound like you really have a problem with the crafting rules rather than the skill rules.
-James
Yep...the crafting rules are all sorts of messed up...CL 17 for a pearl of power 1?!? And to make a +6 to stat item you need the same CL as for a +2?!? I would redo the whole mess, but I'm too busy and nobody is paying me to do it, so I just made the small always have to roll adjustment...along with the gambling aspect my players enjoy.
I perfered 3.5 caster level magic item rules: they weren't preqs for magic items. They were the standard when bought (Wizards really worry an enemy will dispel his Pearl of Power I guess).
|
|
Yep...the crafting rules are all sorts of messed up...CL 17 for a pearl of power 1?!? And to make a +6 to stat item you need the same CL as for a +2?!? I would redo the whole mess, but I'm too busy and nobody is paying me to do it, so I just made the small always have to roll adjustment...along with the gambling aspect my players enjoy.
Which by the core rule you are...mostly. You can pretty much take 1 and get it if you actually meet all the requirments and CL. The only time you would really have to take 10 is you didn't have the CL, or a req, or accelerating and didn't wanna risk it...which is why I have an issue with taking 10 in this case.Sound like you really have a problem with the crafting rules rather than the skill rules.
-James
Keep in mind that (and this has been seconded by Sean Reynolds as well) the CL in the upper-right corner is *not* a requirement for the crafting, it's only used as a basis for the Craft DC. Caster Level is only a requirement if it's mentioned at the bottom in the Requirements line, like the Cloak of Resistances.
|
|
Keep in mind that (and this has been seconded by Sean Reynolds as well) the CL in the upper-right corner is *not* a requirement for the crafting, it's only used as a basis for the Craft DC. Caster Level is only a requirement if it's mentioned at the bottom in the Requirements line, like the Cloak of Resistances.
Yep...the crafting rules are all sorts of messed up...CL 17 for a pearl of power 1?!? And to make a +6 to stat item you need the same CL as for a +2?!? I would redo the whole mess, but I'm too busy and nobody is paying me to do it, so I just made the small always have to roll adjustment...along with the gambling aspect my players enjoy.
Yes and that is part of the issue...why is it equally hard to make a level 1 pearl of power vs a level 9? That is what the DC is right? Or equally easy for a +6 stat item vs a +2? The CL as a req can just be ignored anyways by taking an additional +5...which would generally be easier then the DC 22 for a level 1 pearl of power anyway. It's bloody retarted and you know it.
|
|
No, I don't know it, frankly. Really? "Bloody retarded"? Come on.
I can make up any number of reasons. The main one being because it's magic and has no real world justification. If you want something more then, perhaps it's not making the strength of the Pearl that is difficult, but the construction of the main Pearl itself. Maybe once you've made the Pearl, all it takes is a certain GP amount of *whatever* substance to increase it's power. It could most definitely be just as easy to make a +6 stat item as a +2 in a similar vein. Constructing the belt of strength is the hard part, inserting X GP amount of 'strength increasing substance' is the easy part.
I think of it akin to building a computer. Putting the computer together and plugging everything into the right spots is what takes the know-how. Buying a better video card isn't going to really change the necessary knowledge, it's not like I need to have an extra X years of experience to know how to install a Radeon 5850 instead of a GeForce 7800. They both go in the slot, get power, bam.
Some might go "well this isn't building a computer, it's constructing a pearl of power!" So? The rules suggest that all types of a Pearl of Power are equally difficult to construct. So why can't it be similar to the PC construction?
Like I said, justify it however you want. It's magic. Whatever the rules are, it's not hard to make up a justification on how it works.
|
|
No, I don't know it, frankly. Really? "Bloody retarded"? Come on.
I can make up any number of reasons. The main one being because it's magic and has no real world justification. If you want something more then, perhaps it's not making the strength of the Pearl that is difficult, but the construction of the main Pearl itself. Maybe once you've made the Pearl, all it takes is a certain GP amount of *whatever* substance to increase it's power. It could most definitely be just as easy to make a +6 stat item as a +2 in a similar vein. Constructing the belt of strength is the hard part, inserting X GP amount of 'strength increasing substance' is the easy part.
I think of it akin to building a computer. Putting the computer together and plugging everything into the right spots is what takes the know-how. Buying a better video card isn't going to really change the necessary knowledge, it's not like I need to have an extra X years of experience to know how to install a Radeon 5850 instead of a GeForce 7800. They both go in the slot, get power, bam.
Some might go "well this isn't building a computer, it's constructing a pearl of power!" So? The rules suggest that all types of a Pearl of Power are equally difficult to construct. So why can't it be similar to the PC construction?
Like I said, justify it however you want. It's magic. Whatever the rules are, it's not hard to make up a justification on how it works.
Using the PC example...your wrong, getting a substantially better video card involves getting it's own power source as most tower's power source will not be enough...so it takes quite a bit more know how then just plug it in. Same with installing a RAID drive over a standard HD.
And yes handwaving all the stupid rules as magic somehow makes it all better...umm NO. Yes the game is based on magic and fantasy, but the mechanics for this game is based on REAL math.
|
|
Using the PC example...your wrong, getting a substantially better video card involves getting it's own power source as most tower's power source will not be enough...so it takes quite a bit more know how then just plug it in. Same with installing a RAID drive over a standard HD.And yes handwaving all the stupid rules as magic somehow makes it all better...umm NO. Yes the game is based on magic and fantasy, but the mechanics for this game is based on REAL math.
A large part of my time is spent building PCs, and my current one actually has those exact two video cards (not SLI'd, just needed an extra card for some extra monitors). Sure, I may have had to get a better PSU, but installing a 1000 W PSU was no different than installing a 500W one, similarly installing the higher end video card was no harder than installing the lower end one.
My point was, the difficulty of making a high end computer compared to a low end one really isn't *that* substantial. The main knowledge comes in knowing how everything goes together, how to best manage your cables, other parts, maybe some mods. But the individual parts themselves? If one is more powerful than another, it really isn't that much more *difficult* to install them.
And who says it's hand-waving? Frankly, I don't think the designers are considering complex equations throughout all of the creation of this game. Some things are there for other creative reasons. In this case, while it may not make sense from a mathematical standpoint (or whatever), I can rationalize it from an in-game perspective. In the end, that's all that matters.
If you and your players aren't having fun because 'the math doesn't make sense', then just change it. :) Up the DC of each successive 'power' of an item by 1 or 2 or something.
|
|
If you and your players aren't having fun because 'the math doesn't make sense', then just change it. :) Up the DC of each successive 'power' of an item by 1 or 2 or something.
If you don't care about the math, then you don't care about a rather large chunk of pretty much ANY game. Even chess and checkers is math driven at the core. Like the 3.5 druid...well that was ungodly broken...but the fluff is good so it's okay that mechanically it's ungodly broken doesn't fly. Yeah fluff matters for a roleplaying game...and so does the math. And the math for crafting (magic or mundane items) is broken beyond belief.
|
|
I don't need to care about the math of Chess to enjoy playing it, nor do I need to care about the math of Pathfinder to have fun with it. I've been running weekly games in this system since the Beta, even when things were a bit more broken back then. With the current system, sure, some things are a bit off, but overall the game as a whole is fun and plays well. I've had to house rule *very* few things. And the CL thing? If it's 'bad math' on a few things it sure as heck isn't breaking anything. The characters still need the money and the time to craft, which was the main concern in 3.5. Even if the crafter can now spend half the time on some items with no risk of failure, it still doesn't come up much.
In short, the CL for crafting seems on the very low end of 'what is broken' in a campaign.
(BTW, it's not like I don't care about the balancing of the rules or their mechanics, hell my alter-ego on these boards is a notorious rules lawyer god. In this instance though, it really just doesn't seem broken. A little strange maybe, but not broken.)