Hobbun, lest this come off wrong, I'm finding your contributions to be tremendously valuable in developing not only my understanding of what the rules in this area are, as well as how they impact the game.
Oh, disclaimer not needed. I like these debates, makes my small brain get its much needed work. But thanks!
Now, as for your points...
Sorry if I was being unclear. The point I'm trying to make is that a rule has been tacked onto an existing system that wasn't built for it. The net result is that it creates significant imbalances in the game system, IMHO. Yes, GMs will need to make adjustments if the result is outside the scope of what they want their game to look like.
Well, not so sure it was 'tacked on'. From reading the threads on these forums, for each of their major releases, Paizo does playtesting for many months, and for the Core Rulebook, I believe it was even in the area of a year. So yes, it may be an addition to a system that originally did not have these factors Paizo introduced, but I am sure Paizo looked at it hard before shipping the product out.
Also, who says the original item creation system was a thing of balance, in itself? I still don’t feel the sacrifice of XP was worth the creation of items. But will get more on that below.
I understand Sean's explanation to say that that the skill check for MIC should be easy...when the creator is not stretching (emphasis mine). I don't understand him to be saying it should be easy to create an item to replicate an effect that would take a spell from a character 10 or more levels higher than the creator.
And this point, I do agree with you. You don’t even receive a +5 modifier for creating something above your caster level, unless you want to count the spell you can’t cast (because it is too high for you). But in my previous example of creating a Tome of Clear Thought, let’s say for whatever reason, you are able to get a hold of a 25,000 gp diamond, you could literally create the book with only a +5 DC modifier.
Now, I think most campaigns are run with smart enough DMs where the players cannot get their hands on something of that value (my DM one of them). However, I have seen DMs who are free with their treasure, like with the Monty ‘Haul’ campaigns.
So yes, I do agree with you in this aspect that you shouldn’t be able to create something well above your level, even with a +5 tacked on (in not having the spell).
Our experience in terms of what balance means, and how it plays out in games, is very different. The small amount of XP was generally a non-issue. In Living Greyhawk, for example, it actually turned out to be just the reverse of a balancing factor.
In RAW games, the loss of XP was very small in actual practice. Example: a 3.5 7th level wizard might expect to have about 20k worth of gear. If he made all of that, he would have spent a total of 800xp (20000/25). That's ONE encounter at his level (which would generally result in 3600xp for 4 characters). If taking the perspective that his 20k investment should net 40k equipment, it would be 2 encounters at his level, and would give him the equipment recommended for a 9th level character in exchange. In practice, players JUMPED at the chance to use MIC whenever possible. In addition, many games in 3.5 allow homerule systems to distribute the cost of the XP to other characters than the creator.
Of course it really depends on the player. But for me, falling even only 2000-3000 XP at high levels is a lot for me. And creating the high level items in 3.x will do that.
I had played a Wizard in one of our earlier 3.0 campaigns and of course had Scribe Scroll as bonus feat at first level. And at first, I tried it. I was thinking, “Ok, only a few XP lost for those low level scrolls, I can deal with that.” And I did that for awhile. But then I started making mid-level and that XP started to add up. And then high level spells, and it really added up. I eventually got to a point where I told my DM I am just not going to be making anymore scrolls as I am just getting too far behind with my experience compared to the rest of the group. I think I was at least 4000 XP behind. I remember everyone else making level but then realizing I had several thousand XP to go. Got a bit frustrating, and it wasn’t worth it (to me) just so I could scribe scrolls.
So yes, in your example of making an item for 800 XP is not a lot…once, maybe twice. But if you are going to do it on a continual basis, it is going to become a lot. And if you only do it a couple times, what’s the point of taking the feat?
Oh, and just to add, as I am sure you have already figured out, but my DM never allowed the houserule of other party members sharing the XP.
The gold spent is NOT a balancing factor. What would you use that gold for otherwise? To buy magic items. At twice the price that you can make them for. In a game where the GM isn't controlling this factor (such as happened in Living Greyhawk), this is a reverse of a balancing factor, even without the XP element. If the GM is controlling for it from a wealth perspective, the result is merely PC as magic mart.
I know in most campaigns, the gold is used mostly for magic items. However, in a lot of campaigns we have played, we also like to build up our strongholds/villages, so a LOT of funds go towards that (hint hint to Paizo-give us a Stronghold Builders Guide! :) ). Not only that, our DM does monitor our treasure closely, far from being a Monty ‘Haul’. So I think in that aspect, the money is a balancing factor. But I realize that is also dependent on the DM. If a DM is much more generous on treasure, I can certainly see your point about the money not balancing anything.
Yes, the cost of the feat(s) is a balancing factor. That is a qualitative statement, not a quantitative one. Does it balance completely? One way to tell is whether players feel the feat is a must have. I'd estimate that 95% of the wizards that I see (notice present tense) in 3.5 have CWI. One reason is to have more control over their equipment in non-magic mart games. The other is because it often results in economic optimization.
I do feel the feats are a balancing factor, but not completely. It also depends on the class you choose. As you said, I believe Wizards get these for bonus feats, so it is a no-brainer for them. But I like playing Sorcerors now, so it isn’t as easy to choose because I am using valuable feat slots for creation feats instead of ones that can add to my known spells, boost my DC for my spells, penetrate spell resistance, help against casting in combat, etc.
So really, I think a lot depends on your DM, the type of campaign you are in and your class. But unless people start out and saying “It’s too hard to maintain magic item control with these IC feats,” I am going to play and see what happens before making any judgements. I have faith in Paizo to deliver us a fun, well balanced product.
I had played a Wizard in one of our earlier 3.0 campaigns and of course had Scribe Scroll as bonus feat at first level. And at first, I tried it. I was thinking, “Ok, only a few XP lost for those low level scrolls, I can deal with that.” And I did that for awhile. But then I started making mid-level and that XP started to add up. And then high level spells, and it really added up. I eventually got to a point where I told my DM I am just not going to be making anymore scrolls as I am just getting too far behind with my experience compared to the rest of the group. I think I was at least 4000 XP behind.
Yow. 4000 XP x 25 = 100,000 gp worth of scrolls. That's *60* 6th-level scrolls. Or 88 5th-level scrolls. Or 142 4th-level scrolls. Or 266 3rd-level scrolls. 266 3rd-level scrolls, assuming 14 encounters per level, is enough scrolls to use one fireball scroll for every single encounter for levels 1-20. I think your wizard has OCD. ;)
I had played a Wizard in one of our earlier 3.0 campaigns and of course had Scribe Scroll as bonus feat at first level. And at first, I tried it. I was thinking, “Ok, only a few XP lost for those low level scrolls, I can deal with that.” And I did that for awhile. But then I started making mid-level and that XP started to add up. And then high level spells, and it really added up. I eventually got to a point where I told my DM I am just not going to be making anymore scrolls as I am just getting too far behind with my experience compared to the rest of the group. I think I was at least 4000 XP behind.Yow. 4000 XP x 25 = 100,000 gp worth of scrolls. That's *60* 6th-level scrolls. Or 88 5th-level scrolls. Or 142 4th-level scrolls. Or 266 3rd-level scrolls. 266 3rd-level scrolls, assuming 14 encounters per level, is enough scrolls to use one fireball scroll for every single encounter for levels 1-20. I think your wizard has OCD. ;)
Not only that--with 3.5's scaling of XP for lower-level characters, Hobb's Wizard would have surely at some point before reaching the 4000 XP deficit been one level lower than his companions, at which point he would have gained more XP than they did, so I think that means he actually made even more scrolls than that!
lol
Try 7th level scrolls, as well. I probably made a good 20-25 7th scrolls over a period of 6 months or so. And that alone was around half of the XP I burned. Never mind the plethora of "10th level x damage scrolls" along with scrolling plenty of 4th, 5th and 6th level spells.
It might not have been 4000, but pretty darn close. I wanted to 'always be prepared' and we did go through the scrolls. Looking back now, I know I shouldn't have burned that much, but that goes towards my point in why I don't like burning XP for creating magic items, because I don't want to feel limited in using my feat. Fortunately, everyone chipped gold-wise in making the scrolls, otherwise I never could have afforded it.
RE: I did get to a point of being a level behind and stayed that way most of the time. But the difference in exta XP I got didn't amount to a whole lot and really didn't allow me to create that many more scrolls.
lol
Try 7th level scrolls, as well. I probably made a good 20-25 7th scrolls over a period of 6 months or so. And that alone was around half of the XP I burned. Never mind the plethora of "10th level x damage scrolls" along with scrolling plenty of 4th, 5th and 6th level spells.
It might not have been 4000, but pretty darn close. I wanted to 'always be prepared' and we did go through the scrolls. Looking back now, I know I shouldn't have burned that much, but that goes towards my point in why I don't like burning XP for creating magic items, because I don't want to feel limited in using my feat. Fortunately, everyone chipped gold-wise in making the scrolls, otherwise I never could have afforded it.
RE: I did get to a point of being a level behind and stayed that way most of the time. But the difference in exta XP I got didn't amount to a whole lot and really didn't allow me to create that many more scrolls.
Hmm, that's not my usual experience. If you were making 7th-level scrolls to lose all that XP then you were at least 13th-level--and your buddies would be 14th. If you fought a run-of-the-mill CR 14 encounter (designed to take like 1/4 of your resources with no real danger of PC death) you would receive 1650 more XP / # of characters at the table. With a standard four player group, that's over 400 more XP per fight, which should catch you up to them completely after 10 basic fights where you are below them in level (with a pause any time you catch up in level, but if you've caught up, then you're just as strong for the moment anyway).
The 3.5 system was designed with a significantly powerful "catch-up" mechanic that made the XP cost a lot less onerous than it would be in Pathfinder, where you essentially could never catch up. This is surely one of the reasons XP costs were removed from the game (amid others).
The amount of time crafting takes is a big controlling factor in many games. Our 12th level party just got hit with Mage's Disjunction because our DM felt like we were getting too many magic items due to my Craft Wondrous Items feat (at least that's what a mutual friend told me at another game).
I did a little study of my PCs magic items before and after the MD. I was about where the chart says I should be before MD, and I'm about 14,000gp low now. Luckily I had a +19 Will save. Perhaps more interesting was the total amount of gold pieces I've saved so far by crafting, which I've calculated to be around 26,000gp. That's the same amount as the difference between the suggested wealth values for 11th and 12th level. I could imagine a PC getting about a level ahead of "average" wealth in this way, but as the wealth keeps increasing faster the amount of stuff you have time to craft during each adventure will likely go down.
Is spending a feat to get a level ahead in wealth fair? I'd tend to think so, but some folks don't like it. I wonder if instituting a maximum wealth limit on PCs would help DMs feel better about item crafting. Perhaps the limit would only apply to magic items. Any additional magic items the PC acquired beyond his or her limit just wouldn't work right...something about magical fields perhaps...
At that point the argument might come down mostly to how much choice PCs should have about what magic items they get.
I just don't understand how you can always be a level behind your team mates via item creation.
I was a prolific crafter in v3.5 and I only spent a 3rd of my time behind the rest of the party. The other 2/3 of the time I was actually AHEAD of them in level due to the rubber band XP effect.
And I had more/better items as a result. And the party had more items too.
It rocked. (But was also totally broken.)
I think some DMs resist the idea that you should be able to take 10 on crafting checks because they want to punish PCs for crafting magic items. The fact that the PC gets the items "for half price" seems unfair and overpowering to some of them, and others just dislike that crafting gives PCs more control over what magic items they have.
It's not "punishment" to fear for the balance of the game. Dropping the XP requirements was a good move, IMO, but not having any deterrent but lack of time for heightening the treasure gain of the party is definitely a bad thing, which can break a game.
Most games get around this, because you as GM can have the characters know that they are on a timer before Krang the Evil Warlord seizes the Artifact of Ultimate Baby Seal Killing, but in a more sandboxy game, like, say, Kingmaker, item crafting can get quickly out of hand.
And saying that an item crafter would need to take all item creation feats to be truly effective is not really true. Most magic items which are highly desirable are either Wondrous Items or Arms and Armor, which are covered by two feats. Wands are easily available in most cases and the rest of the magic items see little play ( besides metamagic rods, which are also easy to get. At least the lesser ones. ).
@Sean: I see your point, but since the item crafter in my current campaign himself doesn't want to use take 10, because it "makes the magic too much routine", as he himself says, I can see the other side of the argument as well.
This works ONLY if the majority of treasure is in the form of trade goods and/or cash. My experience has been that most troves contain a mojority of their wealth in items. Since items are sold for half, which coincidentally is the cost to enchant new ones, the main benefit is that players get to customize their inventory. This is hardly a game breaker, esp. considering the feat and opportunity costs. YMMV.
Funnily, I went through Kingmaker with a fine comb ( until module five ) and found that, going by that exact formula, the wealth distribution works perfectly fine for a party of five, with characters having, at the end of an module, almost exactly the amount of money they should have at the indicated level ( from the core rules, page 399 ).
Having an item crafter with unlimited time breaks that little bit of balance like a dry twig.
I just don't understand how you can always be a level behind your team mates via item creation.
I was a prolific crafter in v3.5 and I only spent a 3rd of my time behind the rest of the party. The other 2/3 of the time I was actually AHEAD of them in level due to the rubber band XP effect.
And I had more/better items as a result. And the party had more items too.
It rocked. (But was also totally broken.)
Don't know what to tell you, maybe it was the way my DM did XP. I really did not see the rubberband or catch-up XP both of you are talking about. I mean sure, I did catch up to their level, but they jumped ahead again because I was always behind XP.
He averaged our party levels, found out the appropriate location on the XP chart for what CR we fought and divided the XP out between how many there were of us. Yes, if I was one level behind at that time, it was more of a jump for me because it took less XP for me to level than my other party members. But, not sure what you guys are talking about 'catching up'. If I was 2000 XP behind, I remained 2000 behind.
*shrugs*
Funnily, I went through Kingmaker with a fine comb ( until module five ) and found that, going by that exact formula, the wealth distribution works perfectly fine for a party of five, with characters having, at the end of an module, almost exactly the amount of money they should have at the indicated level ( from the core rules, page 399 ).
Having an item crafter with unlimited time breaks that little bit of balance like a dry twig.
Yeah cause having a handful of extra items totally breaks games! *rolls eyes*
I seriously doubt you would see much difference in play, and even if you did, who cares so long as everyone is having a good time?
Funnily, I went through Kingmaker with a fine comb ( until module five ) and found that, going by that exact formula, the wealth distribution works perfectly fine for a party of five, with characters having, at the end of an module, almost exactly the amount of money they should have at the indicated level ( from the core rules, page 399 ).
Having an item crafter with unlimited time breaks that little bit of balance like a dry twig.
Yeah cause having a handful of extra items totally breaks games! *rolls eyes*
I seriously doubt you would see much difference in play, and even if you did, who cares so long as everyone is having a good time?
Dude, having the party decked out with +6 enhancers as soon as level 8 rolls around certainly is a blow to balance. And, yeah, I don't want to make a more detailed example, but you get the drift, I'd hope.
And as for having fun... I won't have much of it as the GM, because if the group tramples all the encounters in Kingmaker, because of unbalanced magic item inflation ( which without item crafting isn't there in the campaign ), then I have to adjust every encounter upwards. I specifically became an AP suscriber so that I could use the adventures as they are, because I don't have as much time anymore than I had before to prepare for the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just don't understand how you can always be a level behind your team mates via item creation.
I was a prolific crafter in v3.5 and I only spent a 3rd of my time behind the rest of the party. The other 2/3 of the time I was actually AHEAD of them in level due to the rubber band XP effect.
And I had more/better items as a result. And the party had more items too.
It rocked. (But was also totally broken.)
Don't know what to tell you, maybe it was the way my DM did XP. I really did not see the rubberband or catch-up XP both of you are talking about. I mean sure, I did catch up to their level, but they jumped ahead again because I was always behind XP.
He averaged our party levels, found out the appropriate location on the XP chart for what CR we fought and divided the XP out between how many there were of us. Yes, if I was one level behind at that time, it was more of a jump for me because it took less XP for me to level than my other party members. But, not sure what you guys are talking about 'catching up'. If I was 2000 XP behind, I remained 2000 behind.
*shrugs*
Ah, he did non-standard XP. The way it normally works is that each character gets XP based on their own level (so if you are level 13, he reads off the level 13 line, which has a higher number than the level 14 line).
Ah, he did non-standard XP. The way it normally works is that each character gets XP based on their own level (so if you are level 13, he reads off the level 13 line, which has a higher number than the level 14 line).
Hm, interesting. It's not something he did purposefully, I am sure.
So, let's say I was level 13 and the remaining party members were 14 (3 of them). Would he just read off the XP chart for whatever CR encounter he created for 14th level characters, and then read off the chart for 13th level character (myself)?
But wouldn't that completely skew the XP handed out considering the charts are designed for a party of adventurers, not one?
Ah, he did non-standard XP. The way it normally works is that each character gets XP based on their own level (so if you are level 13, he reads off the level 13 line, which has a higher number than the level 14 line).Hm, interesting. It's not something he did purposefully, I am sure.
So, let's say I was level 13 and the remaining party members were 14 (3 of them). Would he just read off the XP chart for whatever CR encounter he created for 14th level characters, and then read off the chart for 13th level character (myself)?
But wouldn't that completely skew the XP handed out considering the charts are designed for a party of adventurers, not one?
So let's say its CR 14. I think a level 13 person who soloed it gets 5800 to the level 14 person's 4200 (it was last night when I checked and I don't want to fish out the 3.5 DMG again, but it's pretty close to this, I think it may be 5850 for the 13). So you beat it with 4 people on the team, the level 13 person (you in this scenario) would get 1450 XP, and everyone else would get 1050. This would help you to eventually catch up--otherwise, what happens to the poor character who gets Raised and loses a level? She'd be worse off than your crafter.
I'm sure you're right about the GM's intent--that seems an honest and reasonable mistake to make.
Don't know what to tell you, maybe it was the way my DM did XP. I really did not see the rubberband or catch-up XP both of you are talking about. I mean sure, I did catch up to their level, but they jumped ahead again because I was always behind XP.
He averaged our party levels, found out the appropriate location on the XP chart for what CR we fought and divided the XP out between how many there were of us. Yes, if I was one level behind at that time, it was more of a jump for me because it took less XP for me to level than my other party members. But, not sure what you guys are talking about 'catching up'. If I was 2000 XP behind, I remained 2000 behind.
*shrugs*
Ah, he did non-standard XP. The way it normally works is that each character gets XP based on their own level (so if you are level 13, he reads off the level 13 line, which has a higher number than the level 14 line).
Yep. You got totally jipped out of your hard-earned XP Hobbun.
Oh man, we've been doing it wrong all these years. LOL
So, you don't figure out the average party level, then? You just figure out the total CR, refer to each different leveled character, and divide appropriately?
Yep. You got totally jipped out of your hard-earned XP Hobbun.
Oh, not just me. One of my friends played a Wizard in another campaign and lost around 2000+ to Permanencies he put on himself. Also, one of us died more than once and those lost out on the XP and finally the plethora of NPC's our DM had join us on sessions.
He always made them lower, because he wanted 'us' to be the heroes and be above them. (And quite a bit, actually). But, oh well, they will catch up eventually!
lol
Oh man, we've been doing it wrong all these years. LOL
So, you don't figure out the average party level, then? You just figure out the total CR, refer to each different leveled character, and divide appropriately?
AN EXAMPLE
Say you are level 4 and your three comrades are each level 5. Your party just fought a CR 4, CR 5, and a CR 6 monster all in the same encounter.
Your party mates would each earn 1,188 XP, whereas you would earn 1,300 XP for the same encounter.
THEM: (1,000 + 1,500 + 2,250) / 4 = 1,187.5 XP, rounded up
YOU: (1,200 + 1,600 + 2,400) / 4 = 1,300 XP
That is nearly 10% more XP than your comrades. If you are only spending 9% of your XP each level to make magic items, you will pull ahead of your party eventually.
In our games, I even made it two levels ahead of my party mates at one point because I was considered a level behind them for so many encounters (I was still more powerful than they were due to my magic items), that when we DID level up I leaped way ahead of them.
Yeah, that is what I was thinking. Thanks.
My DM is going to blow a cork (at himself) when I tell him today. lol We are actually getting together today to play our Pathfinder campaign. :)
Yeah, that is what I was thinking. Thanks.
My DM is going to blow a cork (at himself) when I tell him today. lol We are actually getting together today to play our Pathfinder campaign. :)
Keep in mind that there is no more rubber band effect in Pathfinder since all XP you would gain is static, rather than based on your level. It's just as well as it is now impossible to fall behind short of your GM being a dickwad and holding you back.
(If your GM ever tries this, such as when you miss a Pathfinder game or have a character death, remind him that under the current rule set, it is absolutely impossible for you to ever catch up. Such a penalty is often far too steep. Also remind him that negative levels, even permanent ones from level drain or death, can be cured in Pathfinder via magic and should never hold anyone back for very long.)
Just to clarify, I am sure this is something my DM did not do purposefully.
Ok, so you do not lose XP in PF for dying, then?
Just to clarify, I am sure this is something my DM did not do purposefully.
Ok, so you do not lose XP for dying, then?
In Pathfinder you NEVER lose XP for ANYTHING.
The only way I can think of to permanently fall behind the party's curve is to have your GM track everyone's XP separately (rather than as a group) and then for your character to miss an adventure or two.
(That's why I track our party's XP as a group when I GM, even when a player can't make it to the game for some reason. Being a level or two behind FOREVER can really crimp everyone's fun.)
Well, in defense of my DM. For those not able to make the sessions, he would have them automatically update the experience they lost from the session, the next time they came in. His explanation of they earned it in some form, just not with the rest of the party.
So he has never been 'out to get us' by any means, he just thought the XP loss from creating magic items was part of the balancing factor so there wasn't magic item factories.
But because of it, it was something I did not want to do. If we awarded XP the correct way, I most likely would have taken creation feats with other spellcasters I have played, and definitely would have continued making scrolls with my Wizard.
Oh well.
This works ONLY if the majority of treasure is in the form of trade goods and/or cash. My experience has been that most troves contain a mojority of their wealth in items. Since items are sold for half, which coincidentally is the cost to enchant new ones, the main benefit is that players get to customize their inventory. This is hardly a game breaker, esp. considering the feat and opportunity costs. YMMV.Funnily, I went through Kingmaker with a fine comb ( until module five ) and found that, going by that exact formula, the wealth distribution works perfectly fine for a party of five, with characters having, at the end of an module, almost exactly the amount of money they should have at the indicated level ( from the core rules, page 399 ).
Having an item crafter with unlimited time breaks that little bit of balance like a dry twig.
What you fail to mention in your analysis, is how much of that is items and how much is in cash.
Items must be sold for half. New items cost half. No amount of crafting makes a found item any more valuable. Crafting only allows found items to be converted into other items of equal value. There is simply no way around this. None at all.
Cash, on the other hand, can be used to gain an advantage. For a "crafting" character to do so, he/she must have cash and time, both of which are controlled by the DM.
And saying that an item crafter would need to take all item creation feats to be truly effective is not really true. Most magic items which are highly desirable are either Wondrous Items or Arms and Armor, which are covered by two feats. Wands are easily available in most cases and the rest of the magic items see little play ( besides metamagic rods, which are also easy to get. At least the lesser ones. ).
Rods, wands, staffs, rings, etc., are no more easily available than any other item. Magic item availability is determined by the cost, not the type. If you're paying full price for everything except arms and armor, and wondrous items, then a good chunk of your WBL is gone to start.
Arms and Armor have "hard coded" limits on what can be created at any level. These can not be avoided by increasing the craft DC. In fact, given that the cost of arms and armor goes up in a non-linear fashion, it is virtually impossible to get a weapon or armor that is of a higher "plus" than you could otherwise afford. All being able to craft your sword does, is allow you to get it a level early or allow you to get two weapons for the same price as one. It does NOT allow you to get vastly more powerful items. It simply doesn't.
Arms and Armor have "hard coded" limits on what can be created at any level. These can not be avoided by increasing the craft DC.
Game designer say so? (If so, could you link to it please?) I see absolutely nothing in the rules to support this interpretation.
Arms and Armor have "hard coded" limits on what can be created at any level. These can not be avoided by increasing the craft DC.Game designer say so? (If so, could you link to it please?) I see absolutely nothing in the rules to support this interpretation.
Creating a magic weapon has a special prerequisite:
The creator’s caster level must be at least three times the
enhancement bonus of the weapon.*
As does armor, and quite a few Wondrous Items.
The simple fact is that because of the non-linear fashion in which the cost of weapon and armor enhancement increases, Having the MIC feat does not allow you to make weapons that are twice as powerful. At best, you get a weapon a level before you otherwise would, or you can make two weapons of the appropriate power. Good for flexibility, fairly useless for power gaming.
*If you need more than that, do your own research.
Arms and Armor have "hard coded" limits on what can be created at any level. These can not be avoided by increasing the craft DC.Game designer say so? (If so, could you link to it please?) I see absolutely nothing in the rules to support this interpretation.Creating a magic weapon has a special prerequisite:
The creator’s caster level must be at least three times the
enhancement bonus of the weapon.*
As does armor, and quite a few Wondrous Items.
The simple fact is that because of the non-linear fashion in which the cost of weapon and armor enhancement increases, Having the MIC feat does not allow you to make weapons that are twice as powerful. At best, you get a weapon a level before you otherwise would, or you can make two weapons of the appropriate power. Good for flexibility, fairly useless for power gaming.
*If you need more than that, do your own research.
I remember that, but I thought it was listed under the prequisites section and thus could be negated via DC increase (since its a prequisite).
|
There are a couple of "MUST" requirements in PF, and a lot of "must" (but not really) requirements.
Having the prerequisite feats, and for weapons and armor having 3x CL of the enchantment bonus is a MUST
Everything else (that I can remember offhand) is a "must" (but not really)
As much as I would like to agree with this, the book says otherwise:
The DC to create a magic item increases by +5 for each prerequisite the caster does not meet. The only exception to this is the requisite item creation feat, which is mandatory. In addition, you cannot create spell-trigger and spell-completion magic items without meeting their spell prerequisites.
So, as long as you have the item creation feat, and the item is not a spell-trigger or spell-completion based, you are good to fake the rest, just make sure that you add a +5 per thing faked.
So, as long as you have the item creation feat, and the item is not a spell-trigger or spell-completion based, you are good to fake the rest, just make sure that you add a +5 per thing faked.
That's what I'm thinking too.
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
Caster Level for Armor and Shields: The caster level of a magic shield or magic armor with a special ability is given in the item description. For an item with only an enhancement bonus, the caster level is three times the enhancement bonus. If an item has both an enhancement bonus and a special ability, the higher of the two caster level requirements must be met.
Note the bolded bit. This is an exception call out to the normal +5 per item lacking rule. It's not a prerequisite, it's a requirement. You can't skip a requirement, only a prerequisite. Same applies to weapons, in that section.
Jason clarified this, but I can't seem to find the posting. Maybe someone else has a link to it and can post it (I wish they'd put it in the FAQ).
EDIT : Sorry, posting tired. My point was that if you're CL 8, you can't make a +3 enhancement on a weapon/armor/shield. You can't do it by adding +5 to the DC, you can't do it at all. You can however, add flaming without the spell to do it. Then you add +5 to the DC of adding flaming to the weapon. Then you compare that to the DC of the enhancement bonus, and pick the higher of the two.
magnuskn - I was basing my comments about "punishment" more on personal experience in games than anything else, but sometimes one gets a sense from messageboard posts that more than a few people feel like PCs who craft magic items should have to overcome some sort of challenge (a skill check with possible wealth loss) or pay some kind of cost (XP loss) because crafting your own magic items is somehow inherently unfair. Even your comments, while quite reasonable, seem to betray some fear of magic item crafting, an idea that it will get out of hand and break the game unless the DM keeps a careful eye on it.
I began kind of writing a book about this, but in summary I'm thinking:
1 - Unlimited time for crafting might cause some problems. Unlimited breaks to rest and regain spells might too. These sorts of things are largely under DM control. Different choices might require different adjustments.
2 - Even with unlimited crafting time the worst that's likely to happen is that the party ends up about a level ahead on the wealth chart. With less time the impact should shrink substantially.
3 - Maybe a house rule allowing PCs to craft a certain amount of stuff per level (or per level per feat) would be better balanced to some degree
I guess #3 sounds like a big concession from a proponent of "Crafter's Rights", but if the DM felt more confident that game balance wouldn't be washed away in a deluge of cheap magic items maybe Crafters could avoid the "treadmill of death" (where the DM keeps you too busy to craft), bans on taking 10, and or house rules that you can't craft at all while adventuring (usually combined with treadmill of death to stop magic items from leaking through somehow).
As I said before, normally the item creation unbalance is taken of by the characters being on somewhat of a timer... there normally is someone trying to do something which would be hugely detrimental to the players goal and that adversary must be stopped before he makes something bad happen.
I guess my main problem is with the Kingmaker campaign, which simply let's the PC's do things at their own pace for the most part. This has the potential to cause this ballooning effect, which I already noticed quite well in my current campaign. And there the item crafter has to deal with the group being on above mentioned timer.
|
|
Caster Level for Armor and Shields: The caster level of a magic shield or magic armor with a special ability is given in the item description. For an item with only an enhancement bonus, the caster level is three times the enhancement bonus. If an item has both an enhancement bonus and a special ability, the higher of the two caster level requirements must be met.Note the bolded bit. This is an exception call out to the normal +5 per item lacking rule. It's not a prerequisite, it's a requirement. You can't skip a requirement, only a prerequisite. Same applies to weapons, in that section.
Jason clarified this, but I can't seem to find the posting. Maybe someone else has a link to it and can post it (I wish they'd put it in the FAQ).
EDIT : Sorry, posting tired. My point was that if you're CL 8, you can't make a +3 enhancement on a weapon/armor/shield. You can't do it by adding +5 to the DC, you can't do it at all. You can however, add flaming without the spell to do it. Then you add +5 to the DC of adding flaming to the weapon. Then you compare that to the DC of the enhancement bonus, and pick the higher of the two.
Lets see how it is worded in the book:
Creating magic armor has a special prerequisite: The creator's caster level must be at least three times the enhancement bonus of the armor.
and
Creating a magic weapon has a special prerequisite: The creator's caster level must be at least three times the enhancement bonus of the weapon.
And then at the top of the same section on Magic Item Creation
The DC to create a magic item increases by +5 for each prerequisite the caster does not meet. The only exception to this is the requisite item creation feat, which is mandatory. In addition, you cannot create spell-trigger and spell-completion magic items without meeting their spell prerequisites.
So, if they intended the CL being x3 higher than the bonus on magic arms and armor as a non-by-passable part of the creation, then they failed in writing that in the text. RAW pretty much states that I can still fake the level difference, as long as I add a +5 to my DC.
Stuff that's been hashed out a dozen times before, and commented on by devs...
If you want to house rule it that way, go ahead. Note that it calls it a special pre-requisite, not a normal pre-requisite.
I wish they'd put this in the stupid FAQ so these threads would quit hitting the boards, and people would quit arguing about it being RAW.
|
|
Stuff that's been hashed out a dozen times before, and commented on by devs...If you want to house rule it that way, go ahead. Note that it calls it a special pre-requisite, not a normal pre-requisite.
I wish they'd put this in the stupid FAQ so these threads would quit hitting the boards, and people would quit arguing about it being RAW.
So that I may better understand, (and my search-fu is failing me on finding these threads where the devs say this) can you please link me to a thread on this that the dev commented on?
So that I may better understand, (and my search-fu is failing me on finding these threads where the devs say this) can you please link me to a thread on this that the dev commented on?Stuff that's been hashed out a dozen times before, and commented on by devs...If you want to house rule it that way, go ahead. Note that it calls it a special pre-requisite, not a normal pre-requisite.
I wish they'd put this in the stupid FAQ so these threads would quit hitting the boards, and people would quit arguing about it being RAW.
I searched for about an hour, but couldn't find it. There's so many threads on this topic, that it's hard to find the one they bothered to comment on. I suggest everyone FAQ my original response above, maybe we can get it put into the FAQ so it quits being such a bone of contention.
When I went to go look, I searched for 'Caster Level for Weapon Enhancements' and found over 100 pages of posts, way too many to look through (although I did check about 10 pages worth).
|
|
So that I may better understand, (and my search-fu is failing me on finding these threads where the devs say this) can you please link me to a thread on this that the dev commented on?Stuff that's been hashed out a dozen times before, and commented on by devs...If you want to house rule it that way, go ahead. Note that it calls it a special pre-requisite, not a normal pre-requisite.
I wish they'd put this in the stupid FAQ so these threads would quit hitting the boards, and people would quit arguing about it being RAW.
I searched for about an hour, but couldn't find it. There's so many threads on this topic, that it's hard to find the one they bothered to comment on. I suggest everyone FAQ my original response above, maybe we can get it put into the FAQ so it quits being such a bone of contention.
When I went to go look, I searched for 'Caster Level for Weapon Enhancements' and found over 100 pages of posts, way too many to look through (although I did check about 10 pages worth).
Thank you for your effort, I too had been searching and not finding.
No luck on my end either.
Also rings of protection and aumlets of natural armour have the same "hard coded" limits on what can be created at any level, which is the same (CL x3)
Also rings of protection and aumlets of natural armour have the same "hard coded" limits on what can be created at any level, which is the same (CL x3)
Aren't those particular limits SPECIFICALLY included in the prerequisites section, though?
Therefore those can surely be bypassed even if the armor/weapon restrictions can't.
So what about fighters who have no spell casting levels at all and want to make a cloak of endure elements, can he get a fellow PC to cast the spell for him? Does that incease the DC because he dosent have the spell? Can a anther pc help with the aid another?
THere arnt any rules for it in the core book.
Yes, there are. Look at the Master Craftsman feat to show how non-spell casters can craft items. Reread the Magic Item and Creating Magic Items sections for answers to your other questions.
The "aid another" question isn't specifically addressed, but should only be allowed if the person attempting to provide aid was present for the entire time of crafting and had the requisite skills or abilities. Your DM may rule otherwise, however.
thanks for that info
No problem. Post again if you have any other questions. Item crafting can be...complicated. Also make sure you have the latest version/errata. There have been some changes.
Also be aware, if you have the APG, that some incorrect info was mistakenly reprinted.
Good Luck.
Sean, are you able to ‘take 10’ for crafting magic items?Yes, as long as you're not distracted or in immediate danger.
Interesting.
Caster Level for Armor and Shields: The caster level of a magic shield or magic armor with a special ability is given in the item description. For an item with only an enhancement bonus, the caster level is three times the enhancement bonus. If an item has both an enhancement bonus and a special ability, the higher of the two caster level requirements must be met.Note the bolded bit. This is an exception call out to the normal +5 per item lacking rule. It's not a prerequisite, it's a requirement. You can't skip a requirement, only a prerequisite. Same applies to weapons, in that section.
Jason clarified this, but I can't seem to find the posting. Maybe someone else has a link to it and can post it (I wish they'd put it in the FAQ).
EDIT : Sorry, posting tired. My point was that if you're CL 8, you can't make a +3 enhancement on a weapon/armor/shield. You can't do it by adding +5 to the DC, you can't do it at all. You can however, add flaming without the spell to do it. Then you add +5 to the DC of adding flaming to the weapon. Then you compare that to the DC of the enhancement bonus, and pick the higher of the two.
Lets see how it is worded in the book:
Creating magic armor has a special prerequisite: The creator's caster level must be at least three times the enhancement bonus of the armor.and
Creating a magic weapon has a special prerequisite: The creator's caster level must be at least three times the enhancement bonus of the weapon.And then at the top of the same section on Magic Item Creation
...
The DC to create a magic item increases by +5 for each prerequisite the caster does not meet. The only exception to this is the requisite item creation feat, which is mandatory. In addition, you cannot create spell-trigger and spell-completion magic items without meeting their
im reviving this thread because so many of the same magic item creation questions seem to keep poping up over and over and it's a big part of the game that should be resolved! I originally agreed with most the part "For an item with only an enhancement bonus, the caster level is three times the enhancement bonus" under craft magical arms and armor could be bypassed by taking +5 to the DC. But now after reading further i find evidence to support NO it cannot. AND evidence that CL of 3x bonus in the feats shouldn't even be there at all and isn't a requirement.
New evidence that confuses the matter-
PRD magic item creation- "Note that all items have prerequisites in their descriptions. These prerequisites must be met for the item to be created. Most of the time, they take the form of spells that must be known by the item's creator (although access through another magic item or spellcaster is allowed). The DC to create a magic item increases by +5 for each prerequisite the caster does not meet."
the way i actually read this now is if the item has a prerequisite in the description it MUST BE MET by the creator, an item, or a helper. If the creator used an item or helper to meet requirements that he cannot provide than the items DC increases by +5 for EACH requirement he needed help to meet, the requirements still need to be provided by someone or something. this method seems to actually makes sense or is it just me?
example- say a cleric wants to upgrade a +1 sword with bane and he doesn't have summon monster1 so the party wizard works with him. all the requirements were met but the wizard provided one prerequisite and thus the cleric has to take +5 to the DC...
im not saying it does work this way but per the wording it very well could.
now here's a real wammy! under celestial armor the CL at the heading (not under prerequisites, there is no CL prerequisite)is 5 and its +3 chainmail! So this tells me that craft magical arms and armor,"the caster level is three times the enhancement bonus", shouldn't even be there... but for say rings of protection it includes the SAME formula and IS a prerequisite. so now what i thought you could take +5 for the DC im not even sure when, if, why to aplly it.... can people start FaQing this so we can FINALLY put all these numerous threads a week to rest!?
it still confuses me. Like a cloak of Endure Elemants by a 5th level wizard is a DC 5 + 5= 10 yes? then he can drop the DC by using lower caster level of 5 + 3 = 8. A DC 8 cloak of endure elements that only cost 1000 gp too.
Is that right. Have i got that correct?
I feel like my players who are doing crafting are getting it very easy. THere is no chance for them to fail their crafting attempts at all.
SInce it uses Spellcraft or Craft (type) they go for spellcraft which is maxed out. so a 5 level wizard could not fail to craft a cloak of endure elements at all. with a spell craft of 10.
is that right????
The above was somewhat answered by Sean Reynolds in this very thread. Sean did only select a part of it to quote when he answered though.
Here is Sean's answer:
I feel like my players who are doing crafting are getting it very easy. THere is no chance for them to fail their crafting attempts at all.That is intentional--as long as they're picking items for which they meet all the prereqs, they should have no chance of failure.
That's giving me the impression that a caster can lower the CL of the item they are crafting, and that the lowered CL will impact the magic item creation DC, as suggested by gordbond in his example.
However, it isn't an outright yes.
Gordbond's post was made because he was confused by an earlier post of Sean's. I admit to being equally confused.
Here is Sean's original post, found in this thread:
For many items, the CL provides no benefit except resistance to dispel attempts. A bag of holding is an example of this... its powers aren't based on CL. Thus, the wiz17 could make his bag at CL 9th (the default), CL17th (his own CL), or anything in between. I probably wouldn't let him make it at CL 1st, as secret chest requires CL 9th and the item is based on that, but if he really wanted to I supposed I'd let him. None of these choices affect the price, cost, time, or craft DC in any way, because the CL doesn't affect the item's abilities.
Note, Sean says in this quote that changing the CL does not affect the craft DC in any way.
I am confused by this.
The caster can change the CL of the item being made. The example 17th level wizard can make the Bag of Holding at CL 9, or CL 17, or anything in between.
The craft DC is based on: 5(or 10) + the item's CL. If the caster makes the bag at CL 17 then the craft DC does go up.
I assume Sean is saying that the Craft DC should stay at the default level in a situation like this because the only benefit of having a higher CL is increased resistance to dispel attempts.
What about a level 9 wizard? Can a level 9 wizard increase the CL to 17? It sounds like the answer is no because the level 17 wizard was limited to raising the CL to 17.
But if that's the case does that mean that a level 8 wizard can't craft the bag? Because even if the level 8 wizard can make the DC, and even if the CL isn't a prerequisite the level 8 wizard can't make an item with a higher CL than 8?
But a 3rd level wizard can make a Pearl of Power at CL 5 by taking a +5 to his DC to do so? I get that a 3rd level wizard can do this from this section of the magic item faq:
"He can even try to make a 3rd-level pearl, though the minimum caster level is 5, and he adds +5 to the DC because he doesn't meet the "able to cast 3rd-level spells" requirement."
Absolutely none of this is making a lick of sense to me, seriously. It may just be the headache I have right now, but I'm having a major major disconnect.