Forgive me if I've missed a post (or worse, a section of rules) that answered this question, but are there any rules, guidelines, suggestions, or any kind of indication at all to tell me what magical items my character knows how to make?
This question is easily answered in the case of Scrolls, Potions, and Wands, and is slightly more obscure but still readily apparent about Staves. -- Since all of these items effectively exactly reproduce spells, it seems obvious that all that would be necessary is knowledge of the spell and the nature of the item in question, which directly follows from having the feat rather logically.
For the other creation feats, the ones that generate items which usually do not exactly reproduce a spell effect (Constructs, Rings, Rods, Weapons, Armor, and Wondrous Items), does the acquisition of the feat carry with it the implicit knowledge of the making of all of the items that are craftable via that feat? Does my 3rd level Wizard who just got Craft Wondrous Item already have the knowledge of the process by which a Mirror of Life Trapping is made? (This notion stretches the believability of the concept well out of proportion for me -- I know how to write scripts and code for simple applications - Perl and XML and LUA stuff - but I have a very vague idea how to write code for, say, Windows 7.)
If he doesn't automatically know what he can make, though, how would he come by this knowledge? Are there any indicators as to what to consult, or who to learn from, or how to research? How much would it cost him to research? Does it take time? Can he buy the plans from someone? Is the process similar to researching a new spell? Is it wildly different? Is there any guidance to be had on this subject in any sort of official publication?
~Doskious Steele
You have to have the spells required to make the item. As well as the proper caster level and the required Feat.
Knowing the spells isn't required. Just access to them, via scroll or paid caster services. The Feat essentially gives you the know how to make the item. The check to craft it represents your skill at making the item.
Outside of spell-trigger and spell-completeion items (scrolls, wands, staves), you need the feat to make an item. After that, you can try to make it without meeting spell prerequisites or caster level prerequisites, but the DC of the final check ratchets up by 5 for each prereq you don't meet.
No, you don't need to know the exact process for creating an item. Your character figures it out on their own.
In this case, the answer to your original question can really only be found out at the end of the process.
Once you invest the materials, put in the time, and then make your Spellcraft roll at the end of the process, you have two possible outcomes. Either you succeed, which means you knew enough to complete the magic item (or at least you were able to figure it out as you went along), or you fail, which means you didn't know enough (and were unable to figure it out as you went along).
Sure, that puts the cart before the horse, but sometimes that's how game mecanics work - the result of the roll determines factors that you might think we should have known before we roll.
|
Think of it like this: once you have the appropriate crafting feats, you're not concept limited. If you want to dig into custom item, talk to your dm about it. But there's no game barrier to what items you can think of making. Only those that you can actually make via the crafting check, and any house rule your dm might want to implement.
In this case, the answer to your original question can really only be found out at the end of the process.
Once you invest the materials, put in the time, and then make your Spellcraft roll at the end of the process, you have two possible outcomes. Either you succeed, which means you knew enough to complete the magic item (or at least you were able to figure it out as you went along), or you fail, which means you didn't know enough (and were unable to figure it out as you went along).
Sure, that puts the cart before the horse, but sometimes that's how game mecanics work - the result of the roll determines factors that you might think we should have known before we roll.
Ok, this makes a degree of sense to me; I suppose that for non-spellcaster crafters, who are imbuing their items with magic via the Master Craftsman feat, the reasoning would be similar...
Think of it like this: once you have the appropriate crafting feats, you're not concept limited. If you want to dig into custom item, talk to your dm about it. But there's no game barrier to what items you can think of making. Only those that you can actually make via the crafting check, and any house rule your dm might want to implement.
I didn't mean to ask about what a character is *capable* of making, so much as how a character with Craft Wondrous Item knows that if he's effective caster level 15 and puts together 2,000 gp of components and memorizes Major Creation for the four days of work, that he can make a set of paints that will create objects. How did he come by that knowledge, and does he also know that he could, memorizing Resilient Sphere, with three days of work and 1,500 gp of components, create a small bead that can entrap people it is thrown against?
It does sort of bother me still that in order to make the (perhaps days-long) attempt to craft an item, the crafter would necessarily be aware of the spells that were required to make the item, which implies at least knowledge of the existence and recipe for the item in question, even if that specific crafter lacks the skill to complete it. It's like me being aware that plans exist that detail how to construct a house even though I'm not a very skilled builder -- all I can do is hammer some pieces of wood together, but I still know that this house is buildable and the basic plan of how to do it, even though I've only learned how to hammer things together with nails just this week.
It occurred to me to ask because the party I'm DMing for has just arrived in a city for the purpose of selling off some of their loot and also looking for new magical items, or commissioning either new items or replacements or upgrades. I was thinking about the plausibility of having the (illiterate) Barbarian tell the weaponsmith that he wants his Flaming weapon upgraded to Flaming Burst, and concluded that it would be more likely that he would ask for a suggestion from the smith, which pointed to the smith needing to be aware of what *could* be done, for example.
I wondered if there were any rules of guidelines that I could turn to that would indicate that the smith might not be aware of certain available enchants, rather than merely resorting to an apparently arbitrary decision. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that some of the more esoteric enchantments for weapons, or the more obscure wondrous items would be less well known (examples: Ki focus & Merciful weapon properties, Marvelous Pigments), and it seemed to me that it would add to the verisimilitude of the setting if not everyone with Craft Wondrous Item knew how to make *all* wondrous items. Also, it occurred to me that having such barriers to automatic knowledge would not only make it easier to open the doors to additional magical items in general, since crafters wouldn't be guaranteed to be aware of them, it also would give a reasonable explanation of why the so-called "core" magical items from 3.5 were in lower circulation (I seem to remember reading something about how the game was re-designed for Pathfinder to avoid the expectation of certain items beyond certain levels).
It's all well and good to re-balance the classes to allow for a different power curve that doesn't necessitate the "core set" of magical items, but by the same token characters on that altered power curve who *do* possess the "core set" will be ahead of the curve and substantially more powerful. If an adventuring party has access to the ability to make these items in exchange for time and money, they'd be fools not to take advantage, which either leaves the party smug and not particularly challenged, or it leaves the DM with the necessity of altering their opponents to account for their gear. (I speak from direct experience on this point.) I was hoping that I wouldn't have to make up mechanics to determine how crafters know or become aware of what they can make. <shrug> I can see both sides, and on one side is verisimilitude and on the other side is ease-of-play. I just don't happen to think that crafting *all* magical items should necessarily be equally easy, is all.
~Doskious Steele
You might be overthinking this.
Nowhere is it written that there are "recipes" for each magic item, or that two different Mirrors of Life Trapping were created exactly the same way? Heck, they might not have even had the same spell cast during creation, and they certainly might have had different materials used (one might be made of gold and rubies, while the other is made of platinum and pearls).
What your crafter does know is that he wants to make a Mirror of Life Trapping. He has a feat (Craft Wondrous Items) that proves that this crafter has spent a lot of time studying the process of making magic items and he knows lots of ways to (probably) make lots of magical items, just like a baker might have a lot of recipes for baked goods in his head.
Furthermore, a baker can decide not to use a recipe at all. Just throw some flour and eggs and a few tasty items into a mixing bowl, stir it up, throw it in the oven, and see what happens. Based on his long training at baking, he will probably make something that tastes pretty good.
Your crafter can do the same thing, so even though he knows some stuff, he has the capacity to figure out other stuff when and if he needs to. So between his training (the feat) and his improvisation, he can make anything he can think of (presumably even stuff that isn't in the book).
You aked how he comes by this knowledge? Simple. The feat didn't just pop into his head one day. He didn't just wake up one morning and say "You know, I bet if I throw 2,000 gp worth of pretty pigments into a pot and stir it for 4 days, casting Major Creation each day, I will get some nifty pigment. Hmmm, I wonder if that came to me in a dream?"
No, the feat represents lots of study and training and maybe even some experimentation. Sure, in the game, the PC kills a troll, gets some XP, gains a level, and the player writes "Craft Wondrous Item" on the sheet - so it did literally pop into the PC's head. But we don't have to roleplay it that way. Instead, we can say he's been studying that feat "off-camera" for years. Maybe his childhood, or his apprenticeship, taught him the fundamentals and he finally decided to start applying them.
However he gets the feat, it represents a whole body of knowledge that people without the feat don't have. Someone with this feat is quite literally an expert at making magic items. Not a beginner.
Obviously, it's not perfect. There is a minor chance of failure. But if he takes his time (and preferably Takes-10 instead of rolling) he should never fail to produce what he wants, unless he deliberately increases the DC by taking shortcuts.
In your latest post you mention houseruling randomness regarding whether the crafter might not know some of the more obscure recipes. Well, assuming you really want "recipes" (see my comments above in this post), then yes, you could houserule that. But it is a little harsh on item crafters. By that, I mean the character could have taken Dodge, or Improved Initiative, or really just about any other feat, in which case the feat they chose would work all the time and do what they want it to do, when they want it to. But, because they chose to craft magic items, the DM is telling them their feat is random, unpredicatble, unreliable, and subject to the DM jerking them around if he wants to. (I'm not saying that you intend to do that, just that you could do that by your houserule).
That would make me rethink taking it if I were a player in such a campaign. Nobody wants unreliable character abilities. So before you throw that in, make sure any players in your campaign thinking of taking these feats understand the houserule and are accepting of it, or you may incur some hostility down the road.
You might be overthinking this.
Almost certainly! ^_^ I like to overthink things, so that when my players think of some outlandish and off-the-wall perspective or idea, it's more likely that I've at least considered it. In this case, I freely admit that I'm a bit behind the 8-ball, but these remarks have been very helpful, and I appreciate your prespectives very much. I'm about to be contrarian again, please understand that I do so to attempt to more fully understand the system, rather than out of anything personal or petty.
In your latest post you mention houseruling randomness regarding whether the crafter might not know some of the more obscure recipes. Well, assuming you really want "recipes" (see my comments above in this post), then yes, you could houserule that. But it is a little harsh on item crafters. By that, I mean the character could have taken Dodge, or Improved Initiative, or really just about any other feat, in which case the feat they chose would work all the time and do what they want it to do, when they want it to. But, because they chose to craft magic items, the DM is telling them their feat is random, unpredicatble, unreliable, and subject to the DM jerking them around if he wants to. (I'm not saying that you intend to do that, just that you could do that by your houserule).
That would make me rethink taking it if I were a player in such a campaign. Nobody wants unreliable character abilities. So before you throw that in, make sure any players in your campaign thinking of taking these feats understand the houserule and are accepting of it, or you may incur some hostility down the road.
I do see the justice in what you're saying, and it was for this precise reason that I was hoping to discover some sort of existing structure that addressed this point. (My players generally don't like stuff that I do on my own hook, as it seems to be arbitrary to them, but are willing to accept alternate or variant rules that were written by a 3rd party much more readily, probably because published rules imply prior playtesting.)
Aside from the observation that the DM has any number of legitimate and situational ways of rendering *any* character's abilities unreliable without resorting to clumsy monkeying with the mechanics of individual feats (and yes, these methods do regularly make characters squawk, regardless of whether squawking was justified or not), I respectfully disagree that I, as the DM, should slavishly treat all feats as being created equal in the eyes of the rules merely because there are a number of feats that can be taken for immediate effect.
A few simple counterexamples that have non-immediate or situational benefits: A Fighter 3 taking Extend Spell because he wants to go into Wizard for his next 5 levels as part of his intended character progression. Any character takes Exotic Weapon Proficiency XYZ without having that exact kind of weapon on hand, because they plan to make one after they finish the quest they're on. A Druid who has the same score in Strength and Dex takes Weapon Finesse because he likes taking on smaller Wild Shape forms, and thus could more easily benefit from Dex sometimes being applied to attacks.
Then, of course, there's Leadership. Yes, I'm a DM who does not have the Cohort and Followers necessarliy show up within 24 hours of taking the feat, but rather I work with the player and arrive at a resolution about timeframe that is satisfactory. Certain feats, in fact most feats, are very narrowly defined effects with limited scope and thus present no challenge to immediate implementation (Dodge, Improved Initiative). Leadership is incredibly complex, and in my opinion should not necessarily be implemented right away, certainly not all at once.
All that being said, I have heretofore been explaining why I believe the fundamental perspective of "He took a feat, it's got to be implemented right away!" is flawed; I would like to approach my thinking on the knowledge of what could be created by Crafting from a slightly different perspective.
It's not so much that I *want* recipes as that that is how I initially thought of it (since my thinking has been patterned and informed by an industrialized society, it was a natural trap to fall into). Nevertheless, there remains one aspect to the situation that still bothers me in your excellent explanation.
No, the feat represents lots of study and training and maybe even some experimentation. Sure, in the game, the PC kills a troll, gets some XP, gains a level, and the player writes "Craft Wondrous Item" on the sheet - so it did literally pop into the PC's head. But we don't have to roleplay it that way. Instead, we can say he's been studying that feat "off-camera" for years. Maybe his childhood, or his apprenticeship, taught him the fundamentals and he finally decided to start applying them.
However he gets the feat, it represents a whole body of knowledge that people without the feat don't have. Someone with this feat is quite literally an expert at making magic items. Not a beginner.
I would accept this wholeheartedly if the feats also had commensurate Knowledge (Arcana) rank requirements to their caster level requirements. As it stands, they don't, so either the skill system is seriously flawed, the feat ought to have an additional prerequisite, the feat ought to provide a bonus of some sort to Knowledge (Arcana) for the purposes of knowing about magic items, or it really is possible for a character to be able to craft magical items with absolutely no knowledge of what they might do or how they might function?
A character without a Crafting feat, and with no ranks in Knowledge (Arcana) shouldn't know much about magical items as a class -- maybe that magic weapons and armor are better than non-magic versions, easier to use to greater effect, that the Wizard told him that if he wears *these* boots, he can click his heels together three times and mutter a weird word and the boots will sprout wings and let him fly (which says nothing about *those* boots, even though they look the same...), and that his Aunt Betsy tells a story about, in her youth, being swept away by a dark stranger in foreign clothes on a flying rug. ("Get that, guys, a *rug* that flies!") So why should taking this one feat that has nothing to do, as written, with Knowledge, indicate that the character has whatever knowledge necessary to attempt to make a mechanically pre-defined item?
Given that there is a skill system in place to represent the extent of knowledge, how is it accurately reflected in a character with no Knowledge (Arcana) who can Craft Wondrous Items? If he spent years studying it, he ought to have ranks or at least a bonus to the skill, at least when it comes to knowing stuff about Wondrous Items. And contrariwise, if the skill system is accurate and the Crafter has no Knowledge (Arcana), how does the Crafter know what he can craft? Is he really just a very good or very lucky guesser?
Handwaving it off-camera without some mechanical explanation of the extent of the knowledge gained/represented undermines the validity of the existing skill system, and if I were to do that, at least two of my players would attempt to do the same thing about some different topic entirely, in a way that would seriously break the game, which is why I think about these things in such great detail. XD
|
|
Well, if you want there to be a knowledge check about knowing about/how-to-make an item, there are a few interesting ways to go about it.
Similar to how the master craftsman feat functions, you could require either a knowledge arcana or knowledge *appropriate crafting ability* to know how to make a particular item. The dc would be primarily based off the caster level of the item, but with a few potential modifiers:
You could apply a dc increase based on which feat would apply to it. For example, rings would have a higher dc than wondrous items.
Items that you feel should be particularly rare would have an increase to the check, just like a normal knowledge check.
You might provide bonuses based on the number of crafting feats.
You could set the base dc at 5, 10, 15, or 20 plus the caster level.
Personally, I feel that if a character has a caster level, it represents an understanding of how his class spells function. Additionally, a crafting feat would provide the knowledge of how to connect his fireball spell to beads on a necklace. Once he gains the crafting feat, he can attempt to craft any item in the book. His ability to actually cast spells is the physical manifestation of his knowledge of spells, whether through book knowledge, divine knowledge, or careful studying of his inner self.
If I didn't want characters to make or purchase magical items, I'd just remove the crafting feats. *and I have done this before* Otherwise, I don't worry about it too much. I wouldn't choose to penalize a spellcaster to require a knowledge roll in order to be able to use a feat takes a significant amount of time to implement, and one that only indirectly benefits combat skills - and won't have much of an impact if the dm is watching his effective wealth per level.
Personally, I visualize crafting magic items as casting a spell and then applying supremely delicate magical threads between the spell and the item. Some items are harder to make, meaning they require more threads to be attached at the same time. Some are easier, and only require one or two threads. Once you know how to make the right kind of magical thread via the crafting feat, it's simple to use, but difficult to master.
However, if you do choose to implement an additional check or what-have-you, I'd suggest you talk to your players about the check, and why your implementing it. Then, if a player wants to make a mechanical change to their character like removing a crafting feat for a different feat, or moving ranks from one skill to another skill to make those checks, you let them do it.
Just my two copper pieces :p
Insightful Stuff
Thanks for the insight, I arrived at similar concept myself -- it's always nice to have a cross-check on a creative process. I don't know yet if I'll implement limited knowledge of potentially creatable items - on the one hand it makes my job easier when non-crafting characters go to an NPC to say "Heeeey, what can you make me?" to have that NPC only know a subset of the available items; on the other hand, everyone is right in that it does add additional restrictions to deal with a problem that only exists from a verisimilitude perspective (assuming I'm doing Wealth-by-level right).
Thanks everyone for your replies and insights and thoughts.
~Doskious Steele
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
It's an old thread, but it's become relevant to me recently.
One of my players has a fascination with creating magical items, especially non slotted items (tokens, he likes to call them) that let him replicate a spell once per day.
So, series of questions here:
1. Determining pricing: one of the items he wants to create is a token that lets him cast endure elements on himself once per day. Now, according to the pricing guide, it's a 1st level spell as a 1st level caster, so that's 2000 as a use activated item. Then it's reduced by half, for having a 24 hour long duration, so it's now 1000 gp. Then, times two for being non slotted, making it 2000 gp again. However, since it's only used one time per day, the total is divided by five, making it a 400 gp item (and 200 gp to create). In comparison, a wand of endure elements with fifty charges costs 750 gold pieces.
So, do I ramp up the prices to reflect the fact that it's ungodly cheaper that buying a limited use wand? How much more expensive can I make it to be reasonable.
2. Determining use and effects: so, again, he's trying to make a token that, theoretically, allows him to case endure elements once per day. Could I be justified in saying that, since it's an item that casts a spell, it doesn't fit as a wonderous item? I mean, 3.5 had eternal wands that did exactly what the player want, so why not craft one of those?
2.5. Random thought: in fact, endure elements on a slotless item, and it's a 24 hour duration spell anyways, so it might as well be on permanently? Why not just make it an ioun stone and call it a day?
Still, my original point still stands: isn't a slotless wonderous item that casts a spell just a wand or scroll?
3. Determining knowledge: okay, it's already been addressed in the topic above, but, after five months, I guess I could call for renewed opinions. So, how do you determine if a character has the correct knowledge to create a magic item, especially if it's homebrewed? Since I beat the endure elements horse to death, I'll use a different example.
The player also wants to create a charm that lets him use gravity bow on himself. Ignoring the above idea of just making an eternal wand of the spell, there's also the fact that the character in question doesn't have access to the spell, nor has he met anyone who has cast the spell. So, how does he even know that the spell exists? Short of walking up to every wizard he can find and asking them if they know a spell that can increase his bow damage by a factor of 1.5, is there a roll he can make to know of a spell like that?
3.5. Research: Like I said before, I'm running a Kingmaker game, and if there's any resource they have in abundance, it's time. So, what would be a reasonable way to do research, for spells or magical items? Doskius brings up the point of using an appropriate Knowledge skill to know of a magical item that hasn't been encountered, so that could work as far as research, but how do I determine time needed to research said spell?
This point has been answered, but, again, I want to see if anyone has had some revelations in the past few months, or if someone has come up with a solution in their own game.
4. When is enough enough? When should I tell the player "Okay, seriously, that's way too many items"?
If the tone of my post sounds harsh, then I apologize: players trying to one up one another is a bit stressful, especially since I'm a newbie DM as far as massive campaigns go. Also, I'm really inexperienced with magic item creation, so I'll accept any advice that you can give me.
|
1. Determining pricing: one of the items he wants to create is a token that lets him cast endure elements on himself once per day. Now, according to the pricing guide, it's a 1st level spell as a 1st level caster, so that's 2000 as a use activated item. Then it's reduced by half, for having a 24 hour long duration, so it's now 1000 gp. Then, times two for being non slotted, making it 2000 gp again. However, since it's only used one time per day, the total is divided by five, making it a 400 gp item (and 200 gp to create). In comparison, a wand of endure elements with fifty charges costs 750 gold pieces.
So, do I ramp up the prices to reflect the fact that it's ungodly cheaper that buying a limited use wand? How much more expensive can I make it to be reasonable.
It's either use-activated (in which case it takes the reduction for charges/day) or continuous (in which case it takes the reduction for a spell with 24 hours duration). He can't have both. Probably wisely, he has described it as use-activated, but it might just as well be a command word, so it should be 1 x 1 x 1800 x 2 (no slot) / 5 (1 charge per day) for 720gp.
He could use a wand on the other members of the party or friendly NPCs (or, if everyone who needed endure elements had their own wand, their charges would last correspondingly longer) so it's appropriate for it to cost slightly less.
Nowhere is it written that there are "recipes" for each magic item, or that two different Mirrors of Life Trapping were created exactly the same way? Heck, they might not have even had the same spell cast during creation, and they certainly might have had different materials used (one might be made of gold and rubies, while the other is made of platinum and pearls).
What your crafter does know is that he wants to make a Mirror of Life Trapping. He has a feat (Craft Wondrous Items) that proves that this crafter has spent a lot of time studying the process of making magic items and he knows lots of ways to (probably) make lots of magical items, just like a baker might have a lot of recipes for baked goods in his head.
So between his training (the feat) and his improvisation, he can make anything he can think of (presumably even stuff that isn't in the book).
You asked how he comes by this knowledge? Simple. The feat didn't just pop into his head one day. He didn't just wake up one morning and say "You know, I bet if I throw 2,000 gp worth of pretty pigments into a pot and stir it for 4 days, casting Major Creation each day, I will get some nifty pigment. Hmmm, I wonder if that came to me in a dream?"
No, the feat represents lots of study and training and maybe even some experimentation. Sure, in the game, the PC kills a troll, gets some XP, gains a level, and the player writes "Craft Wondrous Item" on the sheet - so it did literally pop into the PC's head. But we don't have to roleplay it that way. Instead, we can say he's been studying that feat...
If item creators are required to find recipes, would not also fighters need to find some kind of training to get whirlwind attack or dazzling display?
I have to agree with Blake here. He makes some good points. It is frustrating to grow a character and think you are going to be able to accomplish certain things the rules allow you to do (according to your interpretation) and then find out that the DM won't allow it. The character could have gone a different direction.
As far as the knowledge of making the items, the above sounds good. If the Spellcraft check is made the PC knows the ins and outs of the item. Perhaps one could use a +5 DC for items that are not listed and call it a unique item penalty.
Hope that doesn't ruffle anyone's feathers.
If item creators are required to find recipes, would not also fighters need to find some kind of training to get whirlwind attack or dazzling display?
I have to agree with Blake here. He makes some good points. It is frustrating to grow a character and think you are going to be able to accomplish certain things the rules allow you to do (according to your interpretation) and then find out that the DM won't allow it. The character could have gone a different direction.
As far as the knowledge of making the items, the above sounds good. If the Spellcraft check is made the PC knows the ins and outs of the item. Perhaps one could use a +5 DC for items that are not listed and call it a unique item penalty.
Hope that doesn't ruffle anyone's feathers.
My feathers aren't ruffled in the slightest, and in my ideal gameplay experience many things would require training of a sort. The difference to me is in the scope of the feat -- Whirlwind Attack and Dazzling Display both provide the character a well-defined ability of limited scope. The feat "Magical Aptitude" has an even narrower scope - rather than providing a unique ability, it provides a minor bonus to two skills which require ranks to be used. So we can see that Feats, as a class of character options, range from having narrow applicability to having broad applicability. I contend that the feats that allow for the creation of magical items that are not directly tied to the reproduction of spell effects (Craft Wondrous Item, Craft Magic Arms and Armor, Craft Construct, Craft Rod, and Forge Ring) are sufficiently broad in scope and potential applicability that the addition of a check to determine an individual character's knowledge on a case-by-case basis is neither onerous nor inappropriate, and does not imply or demand a similar application of requirements to use other feats that are of a more narrow scope.
As an example, in my opinion it breaks the verisimilitude of the game to assert a state of affairs that implies that the only reason that my 3rd level Wizard who just took Craft Wondrous Item cannot craft a Mirror of Life Trapping is a monetary insufficiency and the inability to make a DC 27 Spellcraft check (5+17(caster level)+5(one unknown spell)=27). Or, considering the various abilities available to a 3rd level character, that a third level wizard with 100,000 gp and a Spellcraft modifier of +17 *could* make a Mirror of Life Trapping by crafting for 200 days and taking 10 on the check at the end. And that that same Wizard could go on and make a Tome of Clear Thought +5 (same Spellcraft DC) if given 131,250 gp and 138 days in which to craft. That this putative third level wizard is restricted from crafting such high-end magical items merely by a skill check of moderate difficulty and a monetary restriction seems very silly and not particularly realistic to the world presented by the rest of the rules.
I only present this reply in an attempt to clarify my perspective; I recognize that it's not necessarily a popular one in that it does indicate an additional restriction to the ability granted by the feat above and beyond the application identified in the rules text. (Naturally, I would advocate the implementation of these additional restrictions only after notifying the players of my intentions...)
that same Wizard could go on and make a Tome of Clear Thought +5 (same Spellcraft DC) if given 131,250 gp and 138 days in which to craft.
While it may be possible for a 3rd level wizard to craft this item, the chances of it happening are slim. There are very few buffs and bonuses for the wizard to get to a place where the check is probable. The crafter can't Take 10 and it's difficult to find someone who can use Aid Another for you. If a PC has limited resources and a party that won't sit still for a few days, it would make it even more difficult.
That's a perspective tht I don't think has been addressed. Crafters take tremendous risks when crafting items. Imagine if he failed the check. 1/3 of a year and 130,000g just wasted. A failed check could be disastrous to a PC. Besides, in the example above, what party (or DM for that matter) is going to fast forward and sit around for 1/3 of a year for one PC the get a +5 Tome.
I am about to start making a Headband of Vast INT +4. The check is going to be pretty high. If I fail, I will lose 6,000 and a week of item creation time. At least a 5% chance exists that the item will fail. How much of a chance is there that Dodge will not work and cost a PC 6,000g.
Recipes are a cool idea but it opens up a bunch of questions and issues.
Is there a place where recipes can be shared like the Mage's Guild?
Will the recipes be bought and sold? (if yes, that adds a greater cost to already costly items)
Will crafters need a "Cook Book" like a wizard's spell book?
What if that book is destroyed?
False or forged recipes bought and sold?
Will characters be able to create unique items?
If no, why even have the Table: Estimating Magic Item Gold Piece Values?
This would place additional burdens and obstacles on potential crafters and , IMO, ultimately discourage PCs from choosing these feats.
that same Wizard could go on and make a Tome of Clear Thought +5 (same Spellcraft DC) if given 131,250 gp and 138 days in which to craft.
While it may be possible for a 3rd level wizard to craft this item, the chances of it happening are slim. There are very few buffs and bonuses for the wizard to get to a place where the check is probable. The crafter can't Take 10 and it's difficult to find someone who can use Aid Another for you. If a PC has limited resources and a party that won't sit still for a few days, it would make it even more difficult.
That's a perspective tht I don't think has been addressed. Crafters take tremendous risks when crafting items. Imagine if he failed the check. 1/3 of a year and 130,000g just wasted. A failed check could be disastrous to a PC. Besides, in the example above, what party (or DM for that matter) is going to fast forward and sit around for 1/3 of a year for one PC the get a +5 Tome.
I am about to start making a Headband of Vast INT +4. The check is going to be pretty high. If I fail, I will lose 6,000 and a week of item creation time. At least a 5% chance exists that the item will fail. How much of a chance is there that Dodge will not work and cost a PC 6,000g.
Don't forget that if you fail the check badly, you might end up with a cursed item.
It seems, from this thread, that taking 10 is allowed on these checks.
That said, it seems item creation rules for PF were changed to make it very, very easy to create just about anything without much more trouble than financing. Those changes, as written, amount to a very high magic game, and many players and GMs don't like that. For the most part, you can, as a group, decide what kind of level of magic pervasiveness you enjoy and play that kind of game. It's a game, and the goal is for all involved, players and GMs, to enjoy themselves.
that same Wizard could go on and make a Tome of Clear Thought +5 (same Spellcraft DC) if given 131,250 gp and 138 days in which to craft.
While it may be possible for a 3rd level wizard to craft this item, the chances of it happening are slim. There are very few buffs and bonuses for the wizard to get to a place where the check is probable. The crafter can't Take 10 and it's difficult to find someone who can use Aid Another for you. If a PC has limited resources and a party that won't sit still for a few days, it would make it even more difficult.
That's a perspective tht I don't think has been addressed. Crafters take tremendous risks when crafting items. Imagine if he failed the check. 1/3 of a year and 130,000g just wasted. A failed check could be disastrous to a PC. Besides, in the example above, what party (or DM for that matter) is going to fast forward and sit around for 1/3 of a year for one PC the get a +5 Tome.
I am about to start making a Headband of Vast INT +4. The check is going to be pretty high. If I fail, I will lose 6,000 and a week of item creation time. At least a 5% chance exists that the item will fail. How much of a chance is there that Dodge will not work and cost a PC 6,000g.
3rd Level Human Wizard, Int 18 +2 Human racial modifier, Int 20. 3 ranks in Spellcraft. Feats: Skill Focus: Spellcraft, Magical Aptitude, Craft Wondrous Item, Scribe Scroll. 3(ranks)+3(class skill bonus)+5(Int Modifier)+3(Skill Focus)+2(Magical Aptitude)=16. He needs an effect that will give him a +1 modifier to spellcraft. Wait, Headband of Vast Intellect +2! He can make that easily and well within Wealth-By-Level since the Headband only takes 2000 of his 3000 gp to craft since he's doing it himself. Now he has a +17 modifier to Spellcraft. Now the only obstacle to him creating a Mirror of Life Trapping is an absence of 100,000 gp and/or the materials that 100,000 gp represents, since he can Take 10 on the Spellcraft check to make the Mirror.
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.
Going by the rules, any crafting character should be able to Take 10 to create whatever item they are attempting, so since the player (the person who chooses whether to roll or take 10) can presumably do the math based on the feat description and the magical item creation rules, the player will know to Take 10 and succeed.
My point is that it bothers me that the only barrier preventing a relatively low-level character from making the most expensive wondrous item in the Core Rules is a monetary deficiency.
Suppose that the Wizard in question was an Elf as opposed to a Human, and started with base Int 16 rather than Int 18. After Racial modifiers, that's Int 18 as opposed to Int 20. Also, the Elf doesn't get two feats at level 1, so that means that instead of a Spellcraft modifier of +16, he has a Spellcraft of +13. Suppose that the Elf waits until 5th level to start his crafting work -- the extra 2 ranks in Spellcraft bump the skill modifier to +15, and one of the 5th level feats the Wizard gets can be Magical Aptitude to bump the Skill to +17. Presto, the Elf can now make *really* expensive and high-level magical items provided that he can develop enough money to start making them. But he's an Elf, and thus very long-lived; he ought to be able to make the money in a short enough period that he's still fairly young when he has the money. More importantly, he's still low-level. It just bothers me.
3rd Level Human Wizard, Int 18 +2 Human racial modifier, Int 20. 3 ranks in Spellcraft. Feats: Skill Focus: Spellcraft, Magical Aptitude, Craft Wondrous Item, Scribe Scroll. 3(ranks)+3(class skill bonus)+5(Int Modifier)+3(Skill Focus)+2(Magical Aptitude)=16. He needs an effect that will give him a +1 modifier to spellcraft. Wait, Headband of Vast Intellect +2! He can make that easily and well within Wealth-By-Level since the Headband only takes 2000 of his 3000 gp to craft since he's doing it himself. Now he has a +17 modifier to Spellcraft. Now the only obstacle to him creating a Mirror of Life Trapping is an absence of 100,000 gp and/or the materials that 100,000 gp represents, since he can Take 10 on the Spellcraft check to make the...that same Wizard could go on and make a Tome of Clear Thought +5 (same Spellcraft DC) if given 131,250 gp and 138 days in which to craft.
While it may be possible for a 3rd level wizard to craft this item, the chances of it happening are slim. There are very few buffs and bonuses for the wizard to get to a place where the check is probable. The crafter can't Take 10 and it's difficult to find someone who can use Aid Another for you. If a PC has limited resources and a party that won't sit still for a few days, it would make it even more difficult.
That's a perspective tht I don't think has been addressed. Crafters take tremendous risks when crafting items. Imagine if he failed the check. 1/3 of a year and 130,000g just wasted. A failed check could be disastrous to a PC. Besides, in the example above, what party (or DM for that matter) is going to fast forward and sit around for 1/3 of a year for one PC the get a +5 Tome.
I am about to start making a Headband of Vast INT +4. The check is going to be pretty high. If I fail, I will lose 6,000 and a week of item creation time. At least a 5% chance exists that the item will fail. How much of a chance is there that Dodge will not work and cost a PC 6,000g.
If the DM gives a low-level character that type of money he deserves whatever happens to his campaign. Another thing is the average person make 400 gp a year. The elf would have to go for 250 years without spending a copper, and not getting robbed after someone finds out he has all that money, but won't pay for any guards.
The in-game(never spend money, etc...), and out of game(DM) reasons should stop that from ever happening.IIRC there was a place in the book which put the craft DC at +10. I don't know which one is correct which reminds me it is time to FAQ that.
Hmmm...so you can Take 10 to creaft a magic item...I'll have to refer my DM to this thread!
Good point wraithstrike. And the wiz would also need a third of a year in game time to complete such an item.
Hmmm...so you can Take 10 to creaft a magic item...I'll have to refer my DM to this thread!
Good point wraithstrike. And the wiz would also need a third of a year in game time to complete such an item.
I personally think that "taking 10" was referring to one time activities such as climb checks. The RAW is against me though. I don't think it is unbalancing though.
If the DM gives a low-level character that type of money he deserves whatever happens to his campaign. Another thing is the average person make 400 gp a year. The elf would have to go for 250 years without spending a copper, and not getting robbed after someone finds out he has all that money, but won't pay for any guards.
The in-game(never spend money, etc...), and out of game(DM) reasons should stop that from ever happening.
IIRC there was a place in the book which put the craft DC at +10. I don't know which one is correct which reminds me it is time to FAQ that.
The subject of the +10 / +5 DC was raised and acknowledged at some point but remains unresolved in errata; see http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/rules/archives/correctDCForCraftingMagicItems
I cannot find the direct comment by Jason Bulmahn quoted in that thread; the issue is not addressed in any Errata I can find, and remains a dichotomy in the online PRD.
As far as the example I gave, I'm not so much concerned with one of my players being able to do this, I'm concerned with the validity of a GM doing this with an NPC. The GM, of course, can decide that the Crown Prince has decided to take up Wizarding as a result of his truly staggering intellect, and has access to the national treasury and an evil disposition... I feel like there ought to be *something* that makes this possiblity ... less likely than the usual plans of of an evil genius opponent. I believe in trying to play my bad guys appropriately to their skills and stats, as well as with the same rules I apply to my players. If I can think of the notion, I'm sure that a properly educated Wizard of Int 20 could as well, provided that the "proper education" includes the ability to attempt to make any magical item. In the absence of that education (i.e. in the presence of the need to determine if the process to make any particular item is known to the feat-holder), the scenario I describe is legitimately less likely as a result of mechanics as opposed to as a result of GM fiat.
As far as the example I gave, I'm not so much concerned with one of my players being able to do this, I'm concerned with the validity of a GM doing this with an NPC. The GM, of course, can decide that the Crown Prince has decided to take up Wizarding as a result of his truly staggering intellect, and has access to the national treasury and an evil disposition... I feel like there ought to be *something* that makes this possiblity ... less likely than the usual plans of of an evil genius opponent. I believe in trying to play my bad guys appropriately to their skills and stats, as well as with the same rules I apply to my players. If I can think of the notion, I'm sure that a properly educated Wizard of Int 20 could as well, provided that the "proper education" includes the ability to attempt to make any magical item. In the absence of that education (i.e. in the presence of the need to determine if the process to make any particular item is known to the feat-holder), the scenario I describe is legitimately less...
If a DM is going to pull some nonsense like that he will do it anyway. No rules are really going to stop him.
My issue with the Item creation rules is that they kind of make the whole idea of slots obsolete. Or at the very least, just a cost issue. Want a ring of invisibility and you are all ready wearing two rings? Make a token of invisibility, or an earring of invisibility. The slots don't really matter anymore. You can in theory from what I can tell put pretty much any spell or ability on any item with the exception of things that are obvious attack abilities on non-weapons. or things that are obviously for armor or shields. Not sure this is really a problem yet as my players have not gotten high enough for this feat yet, but they are getting there, so we will see
I personally think that "taking 10" was referring to one time activities such as climb checks. The RAW is against me though. I don't think it is unbalancing though.
If it were my game, I'd allow taking 10 on mundane craft checks, and for magic creation checks that were done in a controlled environment--a workshop or lab or something, where the creator was devoting the full time per day to getting everything just right.
On a magic creation done while adventuring, which I'm not in favor of anyway, I don't think I'd allow a take 10. Too many outside influences and distractions allowing for that chance of error. Maybe I'd allow the take 10 if the time to create was doubled or something, in addition to the already extended craft time of only earning half of the time spent towards the total time.
I've often considered adding in 'recipes' for magic items into my games. Basically, something like this.
Upon gaining the feat, you get 5 free recipes for enchanted items based on CL. Each level thereafter, you can add 2 free recipes based on CL. Additionally, you can buy recipes for CL * 5 gp in most large towns. Then allow Spellcraft checks to create new recipes (basically as if crafting the custom item, but use the GP of the raw materials, not the final product) for custom items not in the books.
It's a bit of extra work in some cases, but it also gives some more options for RP (tracking down a rare recipes, or RP with NPC crafters to trade recipes while in town, that sort of thing).
I've often considered adding in 'recipes' for magic items into my games. Basically, something like this.
Upon gaining the feat, you get 5 free recipes for enchanted items based on CL. Each level thereafter, you can add 2 free recipes based on CL. Additionally, you can buy recipes for CL * 5 gp in most large towns. Then allow Spellcraft checks to create new recipes (basically as if crafting the custom item, but use the GP of the raw materials, not the final product) for custom items not in the books.
It's a bit of extra work in some cases, but it also gives some more options for RP (tracking down a rare recipes, or RP with NPC crafters to trade recipes while in town, that sort of thing).
This was almost exactly what I was hoping for when I started the thread, thanks! You say you've considered it, mdt, have you ever implemented it in play, and if so how have your players felt about it?
In my estimation, the increased verisimilitude and the additional RP options would more than make up for the extra work for the GM and the players, but as I have never deployed such a system, I can't verify that...
I personally think that "taking 10" was referring to one time activities such as climb checks. The RAW is against me though. I don't think it is unbalancing though.If it were my game, I'd allow taking 10 on mundane craft checks, and for magic creation checks that were done in a controlled environment--a workshop or lab or something, where the creator was devoting the full time per day to getting everything just right.
On a magic creation done while adventuring, which I'm not in favor of anyway, I don't think I'd allow a take 10. Too many outside influences and distractions allowing for that chance of error. Maybe I'd allow the take 10 if the time to create was doubled or something, in addition to the already extended craft time of only earning half of the time spent towards the total time.
As far as the Take 10 situation goes, another GM who is a player of mine at the moment suggested that a crafter be able to Take 10 only on the creation of items with Caster Levels no more than 5 greater than his own, and that the Spellcraft check to make any items with a higher standard CL would need to be rolled for. (To go back to the Wizard 3 that I mentioned earlier, he would be able to Take 10 to make items that have standard Caster Levels of 8 or lower, but would have to roll the Spellcraft check to make the Mirror of Life Trapping, with a 45% chance of a cursed item and wasted resources if the DC is 5+ and a 70% chance if the DC is 10+.) We agreed that certain items that are presented as a single "family" entry, such as Pearls of Power, should be retouched to indicate CL increase based on the power of the item, so that lower level Pearls could be made reliably by folks under CL 12 for example. Still, I do like it as a mechanic to prevent abuse of the crafting rules. (The fluff reason presented for the inability to Take 10 would be that the power of the magical energies necessary for the higher CL items is sufficiently above the CL of the crafter that it does represent a dangerous and threatening situation thereby precluding the ability to Take 10.)
(By the way, on the subject of Taking 10 on magical crafting, this has been remarked on by Sean K Reynolds in a different thread (remarks at the bottom of the post): http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/rules/archives/magicItemCreationAndCasterLevel&page=1&source=sea rch#33 )
This was almost exactly what I was hoping for when I started the thread, thanks! You say you've considered it, mdt, have you ever implemented it in play, and if so how have your players felt about it?In my estimation, the increased verisimilitude and the additional RP options would more than make up for the extra work for the GM and the players, but as I have never deployed such a system, I can't verify that...
Nope, I never had the opportunity. However, it's a small enough thing that I think it would be easy to do as an experiment. When crafting receipes, I would make any failed rolls just cost the current time. However, I'd have a crit failure end up making a cursed recipe, thus making cursed items more likely (as they are currently all but impossible to end up with).
Nope, I never had the opportunity. However, it's a small enough thing that I think it would be easy to do as an experiment. When crafting receipes, I would make any failed rolls just cost the current time. However, I'd have a crit failure end up making a cursed recipe, thus making cursed items more likely (as they are currently all but impossible to end up with).
There's no such thing as a crit failure on a skill check. A 1 only fails if the total doesn't equal or exceed the DC of the check. That's why cursed items are created when the DC is missed by 5 or more.
Nope, I never had the opportunity. However, it's a small enough thing that I think it would be easy to do as an experiment. When crafting receipes, I would make any failed rolls just cost the current time. However, I'd have a crit failure end up making a cursed recipe, thus making cursed items more likely (as they are currently all but impossible to end up with).There's no such thing as a crit failure on a skill check. A 1 only fails if the total doesn't equal or exceed the DC of the check. That's why cursed items are created when the DC is missed by 5 or more.
Ah, we always houseruled crit failures back in as rolling a one on a skill check. Sorry.
Recipes are a cool idea but it opens up a bunch of questions and issues.
Is there a place where recipes can be shared like the Mage's Guild?
Will the recipes be bought and sold? (if yes, that adds a greater cost to already costly items)
Will crafters need a "Cook Book" like a wizard's spell book?
What if that book is destroyed?
False or forged recipes bought and sold?
Will characters be able to create unique items?
If no, why even have the Table: Estimating Magic Item Gold Piece Values?This would place additional burdens and obstacles on potential crafters and , IMO, ultimately discourage PCs from choosing these feats.
You mean like this?
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/houseRules/magicalItemSchematics&page=1&source=search#0
May not answer the question, but it may help
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Recipes are a cool idea but it opens up a bunch of questions and issues.
Is there a place where recipes can be shared like the Mage's Guild?
Will the recipes be bought and sold? (if yes, that adds a greater cost to already costly items)
Will crafters need a "Cook Book" like a wizard's spell book?
What if that book is destroyed?
False or forged recipes bought and sold?
Will characters be able to create unique items?
If no, why even have the Table: Estimating Magic Item Gold Piece Values?This would place additional burdens and obstacles on potential crafters and , IMO, ultimately discourage PCs from choosing these feats.
Didn't see this before, sorry, wasn't ignoring you.
a) Yep, one of the benefits of paying your Level * 100GP / year is access to the wizard guild's receipes.
b) Yep, but they're pretty cheap (we're talking about 5 gold * CL of recipe, by the time you're making items, 100 gp (maximum) is not that much of a one time buy).
c) Yep, although much cheaper (see b).
d) Then they start over, if they were too dumb to make a copy and keep it in a safe place.
e) Absolutely! That's part of the fun! Plus getting the occasional cursed recipe that Honest Homer swears his grandma the witch used all the time and was the greatest recipe ever!
f) Yep, if you need to create a unique item recipe, or you just can't find a recipe for the item you want, you craft the recipe as if crafting the item. The cost of the crafting is the cost of the recipe, but you craft as if you were crafting the item itself as far as how many GP you need to reach to finish (1/2 the price of the item).
g) Last question is mooted by (f).
Recipes are a cool idea but it opens up a bunch of questions and issues.
Is there a place where recipes can be shared like the Mage's Guild?
Will the recipes be bought and sold? (if yes, that adds a greater cost to already costly items)
Will crafters need a "Cook Book" like a wizard's spell book?
What if that book is destroyed?
False or forged recipes bought and sold?
Will characters be able to create unique items?
If no, why even have the Table: Estimating Magic Item Gold Piece Values?This would place additional burdens and obstacles on potential crafters and , IMO, ultimately discourage PCs from choosing these feats.
You mean like this?
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/houseRules/magicalItemSchematics&page=1&source=search#0
May not answer the question, but it may help
It's funny, I only *just* stumbled across the thread you link to here. That is the sort of thing I was looking for, thanks!
Recipes are a cool idea but it opens up a bunch of questions and issues.
Is there a place where recipes can be shared like the Mage's Guild?
Will the recipes be bought and sold? (if yes, that adds a greater cost to already costly items)
Will crafters need a "Cook Book" like a wizard's spell book?
What if that book is destroyed?
False or forged recipes bought and sold?
Will characters be able to create unique items?
If no, why even have the Table: Estimating Magic Item Gold Piece Values?This would place additional burdens and obstacles on potential crafters and , IMO, ultimately discourage PCs from choosing these feats.
Didn't see this before, sorry, wasn't ignoring you.
a) Yep, one of the benefits of paying your Level * 100GP / year is access to the wizard guild's receipes.
b) Yep, but they're pretty cheap (we're talking about 5 gold * CL of recipe, by the time you're making items, 100 gp (maximum) is not that much of a one time buy).
c) Yep, although much cheaper (see b).
d) Then they start over, if they were too dumb to make a copy and keep it in a safe place.
e) Absolutely! That's part of the fun! Plus getting the occasional cursed recipe that Honest Homer swears his grandma the witch used all the time and was the greatest recipe ever!
f) Yep, if you need to create a unique item recipe, or you just can't find a recipe for the item you want, you craft the recipe as if crafting the item. The cost of the crafting is the cost of the recipe, but you craft as if you were crafting the item itself as far as how many GP you need to reach to finish (1/2 the price of the item).
g) Last question is mooted by (f).
This sounds more like class features and not a feat. Just saying.
And those do belong in the House Rules forum. Not the Rules Questions.
This sounds more like class features and not a feat. Just saying.
And those do belong in the House Rules forum. Not the Rules Questions.
A) Not sure how you get that it class features. It's a general system for handling multiple different feats (all the item creation feats). So that statement truly mystifies me.
B) I am not the OP, and I am not the one who controls what forum it goes in. A rules question will quite often bring up house rules in the thread. Why? Because the rules question is 'Is this how A works? I'm confused.'. Then people respond with 'Yes that's how A works' and 'Not quite, you're close, but A works like this' and then there will be a bunch of 'Mostly, but we hated the way A works, so we did this' responses. The OP didn't ask for home rules when posted in Rules Questions, he asked if there were rules to cover something. That's a valid Rules Question. There were no rules to cover it, so people responded with what they had. If the Dev's believe this thread needs to be moved based on the responses, that's fine. However, that's a decision for the devs, and there's no need to get up on your high horse and look down on people and dictate that they should have either had precognition to know where the thread was going, or that poster's should not respond to questions because of the original poster's placement of the post in a specific forum. Nor can the responders move the thread.
A) Not sure how you get that it class features. It's a general system for handling multiple different feats (all the item creation feats). So that statement truly mystifies me.
The Cook Book idea sounds a lot like a Wizard's Spellbook...class feature...demystified.
B) I am not the OP, and I am not the one who controls what forum it goes in. A rules question will quite often bring up house rules in the thread. Why? Because the rules question is 'Is this how A works? I'm confused.'. Then people respond with 'Yes that's how A works' and 'Not quite, you're close, but A works like this' and then there will be a bunch of 'Mostly, but we hated the way A works, so we did this' responses. The OP didn't ask for home rules when posted in Rules Questions, he asked if there were rules to cover something. That's a valid Rules Question. There were no rules to cover it, so people responded with what they had. If the Dev's believe this thread needs to be moved based on the responses, that's fine. However, that's a decision for the devs, and there's no need to get up on your high horse and look down on people and dictate that they should have either had precognition to know where the thread was going, or that poster's should not respond to questions because of the original poster's placement of the post in a specific forum. Nor can the responders move the thread.
I think the idea is for the recipes is cool, but should be laid out by the DM before a game starts. This happened to my character when I had 2 item craetion feats and then realized that my DM was going to put additional restrictions on item creation in the game that were not laid out in the rules. Recipes are not in the PRD, PHB or APG. They are a House Rule. In case new players come on the board and search Magic Item Creation under Rules Questions and sees recipes, it might confuse em without someone counterpointing recipes...so, America...you're welcome.
A) Not sure how you get that it class features. It's a general system for handling multiple different feats (all the item creation feats). So that statement truly mystifies me.
The Cook Book idea sounds a lot like a Wizard's Spellbook...class feature...demystified.
B) I am not the OP, and I am not the one who controls what forum it goes in. A rules question will quite often bring up house rules in the thread. Why? Because the rules question is 'Is this how A works? I'm confused.'. Then people respond with 'Yes that's how A works' and 'Not quite, you're close, but A works like this' and then there will be a bunch of 'Mostly, but we hated the way A works, so we did this' responses. The OP didn't ask for home rules when posted in Rules Questions, he asked if there were rules to cover something. That's a valid Rules Question. There were no rules to cover it, so people responded with what they had. If the Dev's believe this thread needs to be moved based on the responses, that's fine. However, that's a decision for the devs, and there's no need to get up on your high horse and look down on people and dictate that they should have either had precognition to know where the thread was going, or that poster's should not respond to questions because of the original poster's placement of the post in a specific forum. Nor can the responders move the thread.
I think the idea of recipes is cool, but should be laid out by the DM before a game starts. This happened to my character when I had 2 item craetion feats and then realized that my DM was going to put additional restrictions on item creation in the game that were not laid out in the rules. Recipes are not in the PRD, PHB or APG. They are a House Rule. In case new players come on the board and search Magic Item Creation under Rules Questions and see this post about recipes, it might confuse em without someone counterpointing recipes...so, America...you're welcome.