At this point, my gaming group owns only one copy of the Pathfinder rules. Most of the players are what I'm going to call "casual" players, by which I mean they don't really read gaming books except when they're playing or levelling up their characters. So, if I want, as the GM I can control players access to the book.
Now, this all becomes relevant when I get to item creation feats. We've only played one campaign before and that ended around eighth level before everyone died, so the wizard didn't get very far into making very complicated stuff before he literally got his face ripped off. But this time, the player is making an artificer, so I have to get a handle on item creation feats real quick and my question is:
Do I let him look at the magical item recipes in the back of the book or do I make him have to research every one? The role-playing implications of the latter is just awesome, but I was just wondering if there were any official rules about that or if any other GMs could chime in with how they handle this matter.
|
depends on how common the item is. a standard +x weapons and armor shouldnt need to be researched. so a +5 flaming sword (when they can eventually make one) shouldnt need research, but a sun sword probably should.
likewise a cloak of resistance shouldnt need research, but something more spectacular might
the basic items should just be common knowledge, but specific items could be researched
At this point, my gaming group owns only one copy of the Pathfinder rules. Most of the players are what I'm going to call "casual" players, by which I mean they don't really read gaming books except when they're playing or levelling up their characters. So, if I want, as the GM I can control players access to the book.
Now, this all becomes relevant when I get to item creation feats. We've only played one campaign before and that ended around eighth level before everyone died, so the wizard didn't get very far into making very complicated stuff before he literally got his face ripped off. But this time, the player is making an artificer, so I have to get a handle on item creation feats real quick and my question is:
Do I let him look at the magical item recipes in the back of the book or do I make him have to research every one? The role-playing implications of the latter is just awesome, but I was just wondering if there were any official rules about that or if any other GMs could chime in with how they handle this matter.
Generally i dont require additional time to research, anything but low level items take a signficant amount of time to make. I assume gathering the recipe is part of that process. So my opinion is he should be able to look at the various items in the book pick which one he wishes to make. In terms of Rules as Written there is no indication that there is a need to research the creation of a magic item.
There aren't rules saying which items a character knows how to make because it's specific: if you have the feat, you can try to make every item under that heading. Note I said 'try', because you might not be able to make the Spellcraft check if you don't have the other prereqs met.
Comments:
1) How do you determine what is 'standard'? The items in the Core rules are all in some sense 'standard', as they're available for use in any campaign and have been around for multiple editions to boot.
Let's say you call all potions, scrolls, wands standard, plus all + X items. Well, that means some item creation feats now become more or less useful. You can make magic weapons and armor, but it now requires time to make a sun blade, a holy avenger, or even something simple like an arrow of slaying. Now you've taken Craft Wondrous Item from one of the most powerful item creation feats to one of the weakest, as most wondrous items aren't going to meet these requirements. Wizard wants to make a necklace of missiles for the rogue? Sorry, gotta research that one. Fighter needs wings of flying to deal with all the flying critters out there? Oops, need to research that one. Craft Rods and Craft Staves? Not gonna happen. Whatever items you decide are 'standard' are going to dictate the value of the feats with all sorts of shifts in their value to the PCs.
2) Related to #1, now you'll have to be careful about what you throw at the PCs and what treasure they get, as they may not have the gear needed to survive. Generally, removing item creation from the board makes non-spellcasters weaker. While you won't be removing it wholesale, any limitations on what can be easily created will have repercussions on the party's functionality. Spellcasters, however, will be able to function to some degree, perhaps completely unimpeded.
Now, for all that, the role-playing and story aspects are enormous. And in my heart, I know that I'd rather someone have to research the formula for a staff of power than just pile up some money and spend a few months making it.
Oh, and one other thing: how much time and money will it require to research the formulae if you go this route? Think about how much of a drain that will be on party resources. Balance it against the fact that the more items the crafter has to research, the more useless the feat becomes.
I actually love the idea of having to research for making magic items. As Lathiira indicated, it really opens up the role-playing and story aspects of your campaign.
But even on top of the issues Lathiira indicated, I know one of the problems my players would have is having to keep track of what magic items they have researched and which ones they haven't.
I am sure there is an exhaustive list of magic items online somewhere and they could just print it out and check off the item once it is researched, but it's still more paperwork they have to keep track of. And I know many of my friends have complained about one of the issues of getting higher level is the more bookkeeping that is involved, and this would be even more so.
So before you would implement doing research for magic items, I would ask your players first on their thoughts.
|
Well, as a player, I hate having to put more work into making something when I've already had to sacrifice feats, time, and money in the first place. If a DM told me I had to burn time or make extra checks to research magic items after we started playing, I'd probably toss the character sheet and roll something that wasn't being additionally restricted. Of course, my table tends to be very rules-aware.
As a DM, the usual problems that I run into are balance issues. If the party has too much time and/or too much wealth, then balance can really be upset by everyone having the best items for themselves. I generally just tell my players not to take crafting feats themselves. They can work with merchants and other crafters, but it allows me more control over how powerful their gear is making them.
When I have a player that particularly wants crafting feats, I manage their downtime a lot more closely instead. Events happen much closer together, so that their ability to create items is balanced by them not having time to make every item they want.
I will suggest that you don't allow for custom items, and make the player stick to the items already in the book. Custom items can break game balance in unexpected ways.
There is one other, fairly popular way to add some control into item creation. That is, add a rare item component that the party has to find themselves in order to craft magical item x. For example, the Cloak of Arachna might require the web spinners of a bebilith, or just a monstrous spider. The flaming enchantment might require the heart of a fire elemental. So on and so forth. Again, as a player not something that I would love, but as a DM potentially useful to control item creation.
So the problem with research is bookkeeping and headaches, while no research is just a role play wasteland.
So why not just mix both? Keep it simple, have the player role play his way into making something. Ex: his staff needs feathers, get him to go to the library to find a book that'll tell him the right feathers.
There's no need to go into extensive research for the stuff written in the CRB, but you can still get role play involved by asking the question "how do you do it?" He provides a good method, both sides are satisfied imo.
Also keep in mind that if the player buys the feat for his character that is part of his leveling process. Do you make the fighter RP getting better with his sword or the thief RP getting better at dodging a fireball?
I have no real problem with making a player research magic items that are odd or unique. But the common things should be given. You may also consider letting him have two "freebies" per level just like a wizard gets with spells.
So here is how I would break it down if I wanted to limit what the character could make.
Anything with a flat +X is already known. (+2 Sword, +4 Shield, +1 ring of deflection.)
Anything the DM considers common is known. (Potion of healing, Bag of Holding, etc.)
When the feat is chosen and every level after that the player gets to choose two items from the DMG to make. (Staff of Fire, Sun Blade, Ring of Walter Walking, etc)
But the main point of control a DM has is item creation time and money. If you really want to limit magic item creation beyond that I suggest you let you player know before they take the feat.
Before you allow players to create new items, make sure you understand the rules.
Very important: The table with the "recipes" isn't the rule, the rule is comparing new items with existing items, plus taking in mind how useful it is, etc.. the table is a guideline that helps if you can't compare to anything. Everything I said is clearly stated in the rules, but is frequently ignored and some people try to just use the formulae that makes the item cheaper, ignoring some rules of the item creation process.
Remember that Wizards with a bonded item have to improve that item now and then, and they can do it without the feat.
Thanks for the responses!
I also assumed that potions, scrolls, wands, etc., were obvious and didn't require research, but I didn't state that.
I play in the Scarred Lands, which is supposed to be magic-item scarce. I don't know if even a Bag of Holding would be considered "common".
I have also started the campaign in a rather episodic format. The characters are still youngish and are enrolled in school, low-level in the army, whatever. I run an adventure or two and then fast forward a year or so to next "spring break". I'm going to run it this way up until 5th level or so before their world explodes and they're going to be in game time all the time.
Which all means: The wizard in wizard school gets all kinds of knowledge and spells for free for the easier items. The artificer (who is really old instead of young, but that's something else) is working in a shop so all of the "research" and downtime for all of these items can be easily skipped over. I'm just worried when either one of them says "You know, I want to make an apparatus of Kwalish, or, for a much less ridiculous example, a frost brand." So thanks for all the advice!
I also like the "make a quest for a material component" idea--am familiar with it from my years of reading D&D stuff, but I'm still a newbie GM, so I didn't think of it. Thanks!
There is nothing wrong with running a low magic world and making it a little harder to make magic items. As long as you let the players know this before they take the feat that is great.
While they may not be able to make all the items they want... in a low magic world being able to make anything is huge. Just let them know they will have a limit and research will be involved.
Perhaps let them know they will get so many "credits" per level. They then ask if they can make X item. You tell them the research they made into the subject tells them it will take ??credits. Items you want to limit could take a couple of levels worth of credits, with a simple +1 sword or something could be 1 credit.
You could also build in the rare material into the research. Say something costs 10 credits to make... or 4 credits if they can get the rare Mcguffin from the dark forest.
There are a few different philosophies on how to handle item creation and none of the ones I've seen and worked are really right or wrong.
The first is, give players access to everything. For more hardcore players this can cause distraction problems around the table but it also takes a lot of load off the GM. Now I know some people claim that players should have no access to magic item listings but Ive never understood why and never seen a convincing argument.
The second method, and the one I use, is to grant access to anything via questing/roleplaying. If a player wants to make a unique item they come to me and ask "What do I need to make this." then I give them thematic answers. For example if someone wants to make an item to speak with spiders or even spider themed creatures like Driders or Aranea I might ask them to get a spiders voice. Now what constitutes a spiders voice? Well a few things. A druid/ranger could cast speak with vermin on a spider and have them speak into the item when its enchanted, they could also find an intelligent talking spider to do the same. This gets the players thinking on a more problem solving wave length, getting them into thematics of items and actively questing for the things they need to make those items, in turn giving the GM the ability to run a player driven game. Granted this method does put more load on the GMs and less on the players though
The third method is to limit things based on what the GM wants to deal with. Perhaps a player wants to create a Devilbane weapon because they have been fighting a lot of devils or perhaps because they want to make an expedition into their realm. Some GMs might feel that this preperation is alright (I certainly do) others might think that the presence of such an item could be "game breaking". If a GM thinks an item is game breaking, well theyre the ones running the game so they can call it off limits but they need to explain their reasons. This method can be done by the book or by roleplaying/questing. The problem with both is, if a player can already create said item through materials and spells the answer of "You cant do it" will at least confuse them and at worst make them resent you. Likewise with the roleplaying questing route you could give them impossible tasks to create said item but then you will only end up frustrating them and possibly causing resentment. This method is very tricky but Ive seen it work in some games
These are the three methods that I have seen work in games. Ive seen some others that did not work and therefore wont recommend or even list them as I consider them failures.
The first thing you need to do is set the baseline for the campaign setting and communicate that to the players, along with any special rules or considerations. You need to do this early, so that players are aware of how they will affect their character creation/advancement choices and in-game actions.
I play in the Scarred Lands, which is supposed to be magic-item scarce.
This is the baseline setting assumption. Using this assumption, you are definitely within your rights of enforcing setting continuity to restrict the creation of magic items by PCs (and NPCs).
Limiting a PC/NPC to specific "item creation formulae" that need to be researched (perhaps taking 1 week of research per 1,000 gp of market price, possibly requiring additional research costs and/or Spellcraft checks) is one method. This can be combined with an absolute limit (caster level + Int modifier?) on the total number of formulae the character can research for each magic item category (item creation feat). At this level, the restrictions are simply increased time and book-keeping requirements and require very little GM input.
Another option, which increases the involvement of the GM, is to require special (i.e., harpy feathers for scribing scrolls of charm person) or even legendary (i.e., a cat's footfall for a cloak of elvenkind) substances that require adventuring or ingenuity by the item creator to obtain. This was pretty much the default option for 1st/2nd Ed AD&D magic item creation, combined with the research requirement above. This puts a lot of additional work on the GM, however, and makes some players habitually "harvest" monster parts "just in case."
In addition to any other restrictions, you can also declare some items as being off-limits for PC creation. Depending on the campaign, this can be as simple as restricting PCs to Minor (or Minor and Medium) items or as complex as restricting specific items (i.e., rings of wizardry and pearls of power). This works best if those items do not exist at all in the setting, or there is some "ancient magical society" or "legendary item" fluff behind those that do exist.
Aside from potions, scrolls and wands I do not use the item creation feats, potentially everyone can create them but they will need to know how, typically through research, and need special ingredients, some can be bought some have to be found, I also restricted item creation to a higher level fitting my lower magic campaign, typically 4 levels higher than normal, (permanent)items also likely take longer to create.. but I havent really fleshed this out yet.
Also keep in mind that if the player buys the feat for his character that is part of his leveling process. Do you make the fighter RP getting better with his sword or the thief RP getting better at dodging a fireball?
I agree completely with this. If a player specifically picks up creation feat(s) and also invests valuable skill points into Spellcraft, I see no reason to require additional investment from them. In my mind, doing imposes an unnecessary burden that other characters are not having to meet for their own feats and class abilities.
With that said, as a DM I was initially leery when our party's wizard picked up Craft Magical Arms and Armor as well as Craft Wondrous Item. I was nervous for some of the same arguments proposed above, mainly that the party's power level would increasingly creep beyond what their class levels would indicate, that each character would have optimized gear perfectly suited for them alone, and that they would be awash in magic items.
In practice, I have not seen this occur and I attribute that largely to fairly strictly adhering to the Character Wealth by Level chart on page 399 of the Core Rulebook. Running a homebrew campaign, I jot down the amount of treasure that is given out for each encounter and plug that into a simple spreadsheet that tracks how much wealth each character has accumulated. In my experience, this has served to limit any item-creation-gone-wild; the characters simply do not have sufficient cash to deluge themselves with magic items inappropriate for their class levels.
As far as the characters highly customizing their gear, I realized that, as the DM, I was doing exactly that with my NPCs. While every once in a while, I'll draw up an NPC with some random item that is not particularly useful to them, for the most part, the party's adversaries have exactly the same type of optimized gear that the characters do. I think this serves to keep the playing field level, so to speak.
So with not seeking to penalize item creators and when not penalizing other feats or abilities and not having experienced any catastrophic effects with item creation, I personally don't see the need to have the characters research any esoteric formulas or hunt down cryptic ingedients. Plus, it cuts down on some paperwork, allows me to focus my creative efforts in other areas, and saves time in the game, allowing the plot to progress more efficiently.
-Brooks
Also keep in mind that if the player buys the feat for his character that is part of his leveling process. Do you make the fighter RP getting better with his sword or the thief RP getting better at dodging a fireball?I agree completely with this. If a player specifically picks up creation feat(s) and also invests valuable skill points into Spellcraft, I see no reason to require additional investment from them. In my mind, doing imposes an unnecessary burden that other characters are not having to meet for their own feats and class abilities.
With that said, as a DM I was initially leery when our party's wizard picked up Craft Magical Arms and Armor as well as Craft Wondrous Item. I was nervous for some of the same arguments proposed above, mainly that the party's power level would increasingly creep beyond what their class levels would indicate, that each character would have optimized gear perfectly suited for them alone, and that they would be awash in magic items.
In practice, I have not seen this occur and I attribute that largely to fairly strictly adhering to the Character Wealth by Level chart on page 399 of the Core Rulebook. Running a homebrew campaign, I jot down the amount of treasure that is given out for each encounter and plug that into a simple spreadsheet that tracks how much wealth each character has accumulated. In my experience, this has served to limit any item-creation-gone-wild; the characters simply do not have sufficient cash to deluge themselves with magic items inappropriate for their class levels.
As far as the characters highly customizing their gear, I realized that, as the DM, I was doing exactly that with my NPCs. While every once in a while, I'll draw up an NPC with some random item that is not particularly useful to them, for the most part, the party's adversaries have exactly the same type of optimized gear that the characters do. I think this serves to keep the playing field level, so to speak.
So with not seeking to penalize item...
It all depends on the type of campaign you play ofcourse, you should discuss this before your player picks an item creation feat, but it is certainly fair, as for penalizing the spellcasters, I do not think they need to worry. They will still rule the party with everything they can do, fact still is they get items for half the price they would get it for otherwise, if GM's want to discourage that I do not see a problem.