Hello there. I have a player in my STAP (converted to Pathfinder) game who's playing a Cleric. He is interested in taking magic item creation feats.
However, many items require spells that are not on the Cleric spell list at all. The rules say that if he can't access the spell, considering it is one of the prerequisites, the DC goes up to make that item.
However, he has come up with an alternate solution, and I'd like to know if this is fair/balanced.
He proposed a system to me: if he could have cast that spell three levels ago, he can create the item with that spell. For example, if the item requires a spell he doesn't know/can't access of 1st level, then at 4th Cleric level, he could be considered eligible. At 6th level, he could make items with inaccessible 2nd level spells; at 8th level, items with 3rd level spells, and so on.
All other pre-reqs would have to be met, obviously, and the normal rules about needing to know the spell for certain items, like spell-trigger items, would still be in place.
There you have it, then. Is that system balanced? He's a bit of a powergamer, for certain, but I don't think he'd try to pull one over on me.
Thanks.
Toward higher levels, that basically means he can create almost any item without penalty.
Toward higher levels, that basically means he can create almost any item without penalty.
By "without penalty", do you mean that he might as well be a "part-time" wizard and druid and bard and know the spells of each, at least in terms of making stuff?
Alright then, I'll veto it; wanted to make sure. We've got a wizard, after all - the cleric can just draw on the other guy's knowledge.
Thank you - quick response in time for tonight's ocean adventuring.
If you're still willing to discuss this, how about instead of 3 cleric levels ago, how about 3 spell levels ago? For example, when he can cast 4th-level spells, he can then act as if 1st level spells were available. This permits him at 7th level to make a wand of magic missile, for example. He'll never get past 6th level spell prereqs this way, but it does expand his options a bit.
Toward higher levels, that basically means he can create almost any item without penalty.
Even if he uses the +5 DC for ignoring a prerequisite, most items can be created without penalty by taking 10 on the necessary Spellcraft check. So it's really just changing one automatic success for another, I suspect.
I'm not sure why he needs a house rule in the first place, though; it isn't very tough to make the Spellcraft check.
One thing I've done before is allow a class to make a slightly different version of the same item by using a spell that is similar and of equal or higher level. For example, if the item requires shocking grasp, a druid might use call lightning. Or, if the item requires mage armor, then a cleric spell that gives holy AC bonuses might suffice (there was one in the spell compendium I had a player use).
In my opinion, there's really no need to make the item creation rules any more lax than they already are.
For one thing, the CL of the item to be made is not a requirement for the caster making it, so if you want to make a CL 11 item and you're only level 9, you DO NOT get the +5 penalty to the spellcraft DC. The most recent errata for the Core Rulebook says to take out the one sentence in the book that alluded to the CL of the item being a requirement. The Spelcraft DC is based on the CL, true, but CL is not a "requirement" in the strictest sense of the word, so by RAW no +5 penalty to the DC for failing to be that level.
Second, he himself doesn't have to know the required spell. If anyone else in the party knows it, they can help him, and effectively the two PCs then collaborate on the creation. If nobody else in the party knows it, boo-hoo, you get +5 to your DC, it's not the end of the world. A lot of the items you'll make have one, maybe two requirements, so the maximum penalty you'd get would often be +5. In most cases what this does is prevent low level PCs from risking a lot of money to make an item that they shouldn't have at that level anyway, with the added fun of possibly making a cursed item if they try to make something really good and fail too hard on the spellcraft roll. All of the suspense riding on that one die roll is an important (and fun) part of the game.
I also think that if he wants to max out his item creation abilities, then he should probably feel like he needs to take a high Int at time of PC creation, not to mention finding room for Skill Focus (Spellcraft) and Magical Aptitude in his feats, and I'm taking for granted that he has his spellcraft skill ranks maxxed. With all of that stuff, the only things really hindering you are time and money. Oh, and that pesky spellcraft roll. Since it's a skill check, a roll of 1 is always a fail, even if his total (after modifiers) would still pass the DC.
Running the numbers...
A level 5 Cleric with Int of 12 (+1 mod), 5 ranks in Spellcraft, +3 for it being a class skill, +3 from skill focus, +2 from Magical Aptitude (his 3rd feat being Craft Wondrous Item), his bonus to the spellcraft check would be +14. So he could only fail to make a CL 11 item if he rolled a 1, assuming he meets all the requisites (which he probably won't). If he doesn't meet one requirement, a +14 spellcraft mod will get you an item on anything but a 1 provided the item is CL6 or less. To me that sounds generous as it is. I see no reason why it needs to become any easier. Of course, if he were a wizard he'd have a higher Int in all likelihood, and thus could make even better stuff, if he had the money for it. And that too is as it probably should be.
|
If you're still willing to discuss this, how about instead of 3 cleric levels ago, how about 3 spell levels ago? For example, when he can cast 4th-level spells, he can then act as if 1st level spells were available. This permits him at 7th level to make a wand of magic missile, for example.
I may be wrong, but I believe the rules say that items that replicate spell effects (such as wands, scrolls, potions, or being able to cast a certain spell a number times per day) cannot be ignored with the +5 DC.
Without having any penalty at all, it's pretty strong for a 7th level caster to be able to make a wand of any spell.
Other than this one objection, I think this would be a good compromise.
Even if he uses the +5 DC for ignoring a prerequisite, most items can be created without penalty by taking 10 on the necessary Spellcraft check. So it's really just changing one automatic success for another, I suspect.I'm not sure why he needs a house rule in the first place, though; it isn't very tough to make the Spellcraft check.
(rechecks the pertinent rules on when you can take 10...)
Dang. You're right, by RAW you can take a 10 on an item creation skill check. That's totally broken. So now our level 5 Cleric in my earlier example can reliably make a level 9 item that he doesn't meet 2 requirements for, with NO chance of making a cursed item, etc, since he's bypassing the roll entirely. As DM, I assumed this was not allowed, AND I house ruled that the CL was considered a requirement, and I still had PCs making darn near anything they wanted, within cost limitations. Personally I will not allow anyone to take 10 on an item creation skill check. The fact that you COULD end up wasting your time and money and/or get a cursed item if you fail is, to me, reason enough that taking 10 should not be allowed for these checks, and I think it's gaping loophole in the item rules. When I have more time I intend to take a longer look at the book, but I can't find anything in the skills section, the description of the Spellcraft skill, or the item creation rules in the back about not taking a 10 here.
|
|
Personally I will not allow anyone to take 10 on an item creation skill check. The fact that you COULD end up wasting your time and money and/or get a cursed item if you fail is, to me, reason enough that taking 10 should not be allowed for these checks, and I think it's gaping loophole in the item rules.
I think the chance of failure is meant to "punish" those characters who try to make way too powerful items (your requiring CL helps to balance this in itself).
When they don't meet the prerequisites, they should have a chance of screwing up unless they are really good.
As a DM, instead of houseruling no take 10, you could house rule that taking 10 would take twice the amount of time. This could reflect that they are being extra careful. In almost all of the games I've played in time was a major factor in PC item creation.