I've seen it mentioned here that a character with the Brew Potion feat is able to brew a potion of any spell he knows by adding +5 to the DC. Is this true? And if it is, is this something the original designers intended (I.E. is it something we can expect to see errata'd out?)
And if it is the case that this works, would it be possible to take the Master Craftsman feat to brew potions?
|
Well no right away on Master Craftsman simply because the simple fact that it specifically tells you which feats that it works with (Craft Wondrous Items and Craft Magical Arms and Armour are the only thing you get to take your skill ranks to count as caster levels) so that one is easy.
I don't see any reason by the initial rules to see why you couldn't brew a potion of a spell you couldn't cast though. They're not spell-trigger and spell-completion magic items, which is the only additional limitation beyond actually having the proper magic item crafting feat. Nothing in the potions section contradicts this either.
Brew up any 3rd level or lower qualifying to be made into a potion spell that you like it seems.
|
I've seen it mentioned here that a character with the Brew Potion feat is able to brew a potion of any spell he knows by adding +5 to the DC. Is this true? And if it is, is this something the original designers intended (I.E. is it something we can expect to see errata'd out?)
The section on Creating Potions, p.551, says that the creator must have prepared the spell to be placed in the potion.
The section on Magic Item Creation, p. 549, says that the DC for each item prerequisite that is not met raises the DC by +5.
So, is the spell preparation procedure a prerequisite that can be waived? I think that the first full paragraph on 549 and the second paragraph under requirements on 461 provide a context that makes a good case for saying that the potion spell prep is a prerequisite, and thus it can be waived.
Can you make potions of any spell? Not entirely. You are still limited by the 2nd paragraph of CL on 460: "For potions...the creator can set the caster level of an item at any number high enough to cast the stored spell but not higher than her own caster level." So, a 3rd level wizard could not make a potion of rage, a 3rd level spell. Additionally potions are restricted to exclude potions of personal spells, such as shield or truestrike.
As for intent, I find the changes to magic item creation rules to be problematic. I find the idea that a character can make a spell storing item that replicates an effect that he himself cannot make on his own to be a significant change. I can see a game world in which that is not possible. I can also see a game world where the items leverage and create something more than the character himself can manage on his own in the course of a standard action. Either of these could work in a fictional setting for a novel; whether they work for game...I'm still digesting it.
Mechanically, the spellcraft DC for any spellcasting character to make any potion is trivial. Even with the +5, it works out to Spellcraft check of DC 11 for 1st level spells; he taps that with 3 ranks and an 18 INT. With a single rank, he can make any 2nd level potion, such via take 10 (1 rank, 3 class skill, take 10=14.) 3rd level spells take DC15; any class with spellcraft as a class skill can get there with 2 ranks or 1 rank and an Intelligence of 12.
And if it is the case that this works, would it be possible to take the Master Craftsman feat to brew potions?
No. As said by Morgen, Master Craftsman excludes Brew Potions.
Master Craftsman, by the RAW, excludes potions, but Craft Wondrous Item also by the RAW includes elixirs, meaning that if you want to create a bottle of magic liquid containing any magic possible, regardless of level, you can make it as an elixir and do this with a spell of any level.
Pricing is a little bit different, but effect is the same or better, and to the lay populace all they'd know is that elixirs work the same or better but are pricier.
If you can beat the higher Spellcraft DCs, you can create most any potion you like. A wizard with brew potion could craft cure potions for example.
The section on Creating Potions, p.551, says that the creator must have prepared the spell to be placed in the potion.
I just wanted to point out how silly this portion of your argument is. Such a statement, if followed strictly, would prevent spontaneous casters from ever being able to brew potions, which obviously isn't the case or the intent.
Can you make potions of any spell? Not entirely. You are still limited by the 2nd paragraph of CL on 460: "For potions...the creator can set the caster level of an item at any number high enough to cast the stored spell but not higher than her own caster level."
I don't see how this prevents a wizard from making cure spells. The caster level is set by the Spellcraft DC the crafter sets for himself. Just because potion making has a special limitation (not letting you go higher than your own caster level) doesn't mean you can't craft potions of spells you don't know. It looks to me like you are jumping to conclusions.
So, a 3rd level wizard could not make a potion of rage, a 3rd level spell.
Agreed.
Additionally potions are restricted to exclude potions of personal spells, such as shield or truestrike.
This is to keep fighters from running around with potions of shield and other unbalancing combos (this would make mundane shields meaningless, among other balance problems). This in itself, does not support your notion that one cannot brew potions of any kind.
So far you've presented a lot of implications, but no evidence.
"Brew Potion" says you have to know the spell, *and* the entry on Potions in the section on creating magic items says you have to know the spell, *and* the Item Cost section says that "The caster level must be low enough that the spellcaster creating the item can cast the spell at that level"; thus, no, you can't make a poition of a spell you don't know.
Um...that's not true at all. Every magic item description says that. That passage alone doesn't change the fact that you can bypass it by upping the DC.
If you look under all the other item crafting sections for other magical items, they have near identical wording, yet it is understood that you do NOT need to KNOW or PREPARE said prerequisite spells if you increase the DC with those items. Potions are no different.
See for yourself...
Creating Magic Weapons
If spells are involved in the prerequisites for making the weapon, the creator must have prepared the spells to be cast (or must know the spells, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) but need not provide any material components or focuses the spells require. The act of working on the weapon triggers the prepared spells, making them unavailable for casting during each day of the weapon's creation. (That is, those spell slots are expended from the caster's currently prepared spells, just as if they had been cast.)
Creating Wondrous Items
If spells are involved in the prerequisites for making the item, the creator must have prepared the spells to be cast (or must know the spells, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) but need not provide any material components or focuses the spells require. The act of working on the item triggers the prepared spells, making them unavailable for casting during each day of the item's creation. (That is, those spell slots are expended from the caster's currently prepared spells, just as if they had been cast.)
See what I mean? I don't think anyone would tell you that you HAVE to have the spells for wondrous items and magic arms and armor, provided you can beat the increased Spellcraft DC for not having them OR you could get the spell some other way (such as having a second caster cast it in your stead).
Note that all items have prerequisites in their descriptions. These prerequisites must be met for the item to be created. Most of the time, they take the form of spells that must be known by the item's creator (although access through another magic item or spellcaster is allowed). The DC to create a magic item increases by +5 for each prerequisite the caster does not meet. The only exception to this is the requisite item creation feat, which is mandatory. In addition, you cannot create spell-trigger and spell-completion magic items without meeting their spell prerequisites.
That combined with the fact that potions are neither spell completion or spell trigger (the only types of items where it specifically says you need to have the spell at hand) is what made me ask the question in the first place.
If you can beat the higher Spellcraft DCs, you can create most any potion you like. A wizard with brew potion could craft cure potions for example.No, you can't. See the post immediately before you for the reasons why not. It's not RAW, and I'm pretty sure it's not RAI either.
I've seen a lot of back and forth on it as well as evidence for both interpretations. Last I checked, the argument that you could do as I described was winning. If I can find some of the old threads, I'll link to them.
EDIT: Found one.
|
Potions have no prerequisites that can be omitted by the mechanism described in the paragraph; thus, they work as their creation feat (and other similar text) describes.
+1 to this.
A spellcaster MUST know/have prepared the spell he is trying to make a potion of. The creation of the item expends this spell. This is not a normal prerequisite this is simply the functioning of the thing. "Requirements" is a self enclosed term that is listed on the statblock of a magical item. For additional evidence to this effect see the section on the alchemist class that notes "An alchemist can brew potions of any formulae he knows (up to 3rd level), using his alchemist level as his caster level." If any class would have access to cross list potion making it would be the alchemist, and as I have shown they clearly are unable to do so.
By your logic then any spellcaster could scribe any a scroll of any spell regardless of it being on their list, prepared, or known by simply bumping the DC up by 5. That or you could just as easily bunch in the materials as a "prerequisite" and simply make potions out of thin air ignoring the cost by bumping the DC up by 5.
Rules lawyer all you want, but that doesn't make you right about this.
For what its worth, I agree with Ravingdork, that you can make any potion assuming a high enough check to account for the penalties.
Basic Creating Magic Item Text
These prerequisites must be met for the item to be created. Most of the time, they take the form of spells that must be known by the item's creator (although access through another magic item or spellcaster is allowed). The DC to create a magic item increases by +5 for each prerequisite the caster does not meet.
Creating Potions
The creator must have prepared the spell to be placed in the potion (or must know the spell, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) and must provide any material component or focus the spell requires.
To me, this goes from the general statement of "most of the time, the prerequisite is a spell" to the specific for potions of "yes, the prerequisite is a spell". To me, it in no way invalidates the "ignore the prerequisite but take a +5 to DC" option.
That said, I would love a Designer statement on this, to settle the issue.
|
|
The section on Creating Potions, p.551, says that the creator must have prepared the spell to be placed in the potion.I just wanted to point out how silly this portion of your argument is. Such a statement, if followed strictly, would prevent spontaneous casters from ever being able to brew potions, which obviously isn't the case or the intent.
I don't think you understand my arguement at all. After all, my conclusion was that the spell preparation is contextually a prerequisite and thus can be waived. But, if you wanna argue both sides of the position, go for it.
As for what you are identifying as silly, that's the RAW. I think that the omission regarding spontaneous caster spell methods is an oversight and that the RAI is that the prerequisite is that the spell be available to cast (either prepared or a spell known with an open slot).
Can you make potions of any spell? Not entirely. You are still limited by the 2nd paragraph of CL on 460: "For potions...the creator can set the caster level of an item at any number high enough to cast the stored spell but not higher than her own caster level."I don't see how this prevents a wizard from making cure spells. The caster level is set by the Spellcraft DC the crafter sets for himself. Just because potion making has a special limitation (not letting you go higher than your own caster level) doesn't mean you can't craft potions of spells you don't know. It looks to me like you are jumping to conclusions.
That's nice. I didn't say it didn't allow for cure spells. I said that the caster level limit couldn't be obviated. I didn't jump to anything.
So, a 3rd level wizard could not make a potion of rage, a 3rd level spell.Agreed.
Additionally potions are restricted to exclude potions of personal spells, such as shield or truestrike.This is to keep fighters from running around with potions of shield and other unbalancing combos (this would make mundane shields meaningless, among other balance problems). This in itself, does not support your notion that one cannot brew potions of any kind.
Actually I disagree with WHY the limit exists. Your argument is one of design from a gamist perspective. I understand the reason for why personal spells can't go into potions is that the nature of a personal spell is that it can only be activated by someone with the spell on his spell list (spell trigger/completion/cast it yourself) or via UMD. I see this a matter of internal consistency in the spirit of game mastery (one of the underlying design principles in 3e).
But, since I don't HAVE the notion that one cannot brew potions of any kind, but instead was describing limits on the "brew any potion" idea of OP, well, the fact that it doesn't support a position that I don't have is rather pointless.
So far you've presented a lot of implications, but no evidence.
Well, I did give evidence. I provided evidence that the prerequisite could be waived, but that there were still limits. But, given that you didn't understand my post in the first place (to the point of not quoting the conclusion...apparently that was meaningless to you), then I'm not really concerned about your dismissal of the position you attribute to me, but which I don't have have.
So...here's my conclusion again, with bold for easy comprehension:
So, is the spell preparation procedure a prerequisite that can be waived? I think that the first full paragraph on 549 and the second paragraph under requirements on 461 provide a context that makes a good case for saying that the potion spell prep is a prerequisite, and thus it can be waived.
|
|
Again I warn against that judgment simply because of the precedent it sets. In the way things are defined (Somewhat nebulously i will admit) having the feat is the first and foremost absolute MUST. You can't even enter the process without that.
Saying that the spell known clause is a "Requirement" would allow you to make any potions regardless of knowing it by adding +5 to the DC is would be eliminating a top level instruction on how potions are made.
Along with these instructions is the material cost for the potion. You know, the part that says you must have materials costing a total of X for Y spell level,By the same logic you can say this is a "Requirement." Which means you would then be able to make potions for free as long as you can meet the new DC at +5.
|
|
Again I warn against that judgment simply because of the precedent it sets. In the way things are defined (Somewhat nebulously i will admit) having the feat is the first and foremost absolute MUST. You can't even enter the process without that.
Saying that the spell known clause is a "Requirement" would allow you to make any potions regardless of knowing it by adding +5 to the DC is would be eliminating a top level instruction on how potions are made.
Along with these instructions is the material cost for the potion. You know, the part that says you must have materials costing a total of X for Y spell level,By the same logic you can say this is a "Requirement." Which means you would then be able to make potions for free as long as you can meet the new DC at +5.
Precedent is a slippery slope position, which is a logical fallacy. Item cost, by definition, is outside the prerequisite block. I feel no compulsion that identifying spells needed (the typical kind of prerequisite) as a prerequisite to also incorporating Cost (an item explicityly outside the prerequisites block). I feel no compulsion to including wands and scrolls in this discussion; they have additional rule elements.
I'm basing my opinion on the context provided by two statements. One says items have prerequites (usually spells), which can be waived. The other says that potions require that the creator prepare (with due regard to spontaneous casters) the spell. This sounds like a prerequisite to me, and thus can be waived.
The argument against is that the prerequisite doesn't appear in the item description. There is no item description for each potion because the item description variations would be repetitive, trivial, and a waste of paper and ink.
This all said, I've also said in this thread and elsewhere that I think the Spellcraft DC and waived prerequisites idea is troublesome in its entirety; it creates a extensive system of loopholes, logical odditities, exceptions, etc. I don't care for it.
I word searched the Magic Item Creation page in the PRD. The word "waive" never appears.
Here's how I read the second paragraph.
Note that all items have prerequisites in their descriptions. These prerequisites must be met for the item to be created.
(Emphasis mine)
That's "must" not "may".
Most of the time, they take the form of spells that must be known by the item's creator (although access through another magic item or spellcaster is allowed). The DC to create a magic item increases by +5 for each prerequisite the caster does not meet.
Again, that's "must" not "may", but it allows a Crafter to use otherwise inaccessible spells in two specific circumstances:
1. If the caster has access to a magic item that can cast the spell. (e.g. a scroll, wand, Ring of Spellstoring. Boots of Striding & Springing will not suffice for casting Longstrider, nor will they fill in for the required skill levels of a Ring of Jumping.)or
2. If the caster has access to a spellcaster who knows the spell.
The +5 to DC is the penalty for not knowing it yourself.
The only exception to this is the requisite item creation feat, which is mandatory. In addition, you cannot create spell-trigger and spell-completion magic items without meeting their spell prerequisites.
These tie specifically to the caster, but does not not obviate the need for meeting the prerequisites.
... And to tie this back into potions...
The act of brewing triggers the prepared spell, making it unavailable for casting until the character has rested and regained spells. (That is, that spell slot is expended from the caster's currently prepared spells, just as if it had been cast.)
You need the spell. If not in your head then at least readily available.
Apologies Howie23.
|
|
Item cost, by definition, is outside the prerequisite block.See that is the core problem here, we HAVE no statblock for potion creation.
Honestly, I can see both sides of the argument but in the end for me it comes down to believability which this simply isn't.
Exactly. There is no statblock for potions; as such, I find the argument that the spell prerequisite doesn't appear in that missing statblock, and thus cannot be waived by the skill increase to lack any weight for me. It is immaterial whether the publisher chose to make a long, trivial, and redundant list of such item descriptions. I see that as a publishing decision, not a rules decision.
Edit: as for the item cost, though, I was refering to the general case, not specificially to potions.
As for believability, I don't care for it either.
|
|
I word searched the Magic Item Creation page in the PRD. The word "waive" never appears.
The word doesn't have to be there for the concept to be there such that it can be expressed by reference.
Your overall position on how this fits together is unique and well outside the mainstream for how others are understanding it, regardless of how they disagree.
I word searched the Magic Item Creation page in the PRD. The word "waive" never appears.The word doesn't have to be there for the concept to be there such that it can be expressed by reference.
So you're going with "Read as Inferred"?
Your overall position on how this fits together is unique and well outside the mainstream for how others are understanding it, regardless of how they disagree.
Less than half the people posting on a messageboard do not make a "mainstream". You are giving the Sorcerer/Wizard access to Cure & Resto magic, not to mention all the other spells that are not on their list. Your DM would have to have a loopy to let that slide.
If your interpretation of the Item Creation feats is how Paizo intends for them to work then I can see why so many people think wizards are over powered.
|
|
So you're going with "Read as Inferred"?
I don't know what this means.
My statement was that the fact that you could not find the word "waived" doesn't mean that the concept isn't there. You can obviate the need for a prerequisite. That means the prerequisite is waived. I can now say waived without having to explain it repeatedly.
Your overall position on how this fits together is unique and well outside the mainstream for how others are understanding it, regardless of how they disagree.
Less than half the people posting on a messageboard do not make a "mainstream". You are giving the Sorcerer/Wizard access to Cure & Resto magic, not to mention all the other spells that are not on their list. Your DM would have to have a loopy to let that slide.
I've expressed a mixed opinion on the matter. I think the RAW says one thing. I think this is at variance with 3e's overall design. I think that the entire Spellcraft check system is loopy.
I'm not giving anyone anything and I don't expect my GM, nor the players whom I GM, to adhere to a screwed up system.
My statement about your position being outside the mainstream is based not on this thread only. You've described an opinion on the relationships regarding cooperative crafting, using spell completion/trigger items, the prerequisites, and how this fits into the magic item creation process and the spellcraft check. No one else has ever come to the same conclusions in any of the threads I have seen here. Your views are outside of the mainstream. They are unique in my experience. Either you have stumbled onto an epiphany that is merely waiting for the delayed angelic chorus of "ahhhhs" or you have a unique perspective.
If your interpretation of the Item Creation feats is how Paizo intends for them to work then I can see why so many people think wizards are over powered.
Wizards have been viewed as overpowered long before Paizo screwed up the magic item creation process.
My opinion is somewhat similar to ACW has presented elsewhere. I think this is a case of design oversight. I think that the spellcraft check got tacked onto the system without due consideration to how it filters into the rest of what was already a system suffering from problems.
Your DM would have to have a loopy to let that slide.
Why would the GM have to be loopy? They are spending resources on it, so why shouldn't they get it?
I have already defeated several arguments supporting the notion that sorcerers could not make cure potions.
It's not loopy at all to think such a thing is possible.
I figured that it was never intended that you could brew potions of spells you didn't know.
I figured that it was never intended that you could brew potions of spells you didn't know.
If that was their intent they messed that up by using "you must" where they meant "you must unless you increase the dc by 5" and then specifically calling out spell trigger and spell completion as the ONLY items where the must was a must.
Unlike a scroll I can see how two or more people could cooperate in making a potion.
Here's what's bothering me. If someone makes a potion of light(not an oil, a potion) would the drinker be blinded for the duration?
Unlike a scroll I can see how two or more people could cooperate in making a potion.
Here's what's bothering me. If someone makes a potion of light(not an oil, a potion) would the drinker be blinded for the duration?
No. Just really really shiny.
A potion of feather fall would only be practicle in a false tooth or something. Maybe you could chug it and then jump.
Arise, thread! Thread, arise!
Wow, have times changed since this thread was active.