@beej67
As you have said the +5 weapon has ICL 15 and because it's a weapon it requires a CCL of 15, that's a special rule that applies to weapons, armors and shields.
You mean the 40,000 gp ring gates that, even at half price for crafting, would eat up 2/3s of your 8th level bard's (or mage's) wealth by level?
Yeah, I totally would! Nothing in the rules says they can't. (Well, except for the whole "you shouldn't spend more than half your wealth on a single item" thing)
If he puts up the money, and he's maxed his Int to hit the Spellcraft DC at 8th level, he gets access to the item. Would you disagree?
Edit: As for your 6th level weapon crafter, if he's got 25,000 gp to blow at 6th level, He's going to be causing problems no matter how you run the crafting system
Absolutely I would disagree. It's world-wrecking. If the only check/balance against extreme magic power is wealth, then what does that do to your campaign world? NPCs aren't limited by the wealth chart, and neither is the sole survivor of a near TPW.
3rd level guy "Takes 10" to craft a Crystal Ball? That'll wreck a game.
5+ICL10+5(no scry)=DC20
18 Int +2(human)=20 -> +5 ability mod
3 ranks +3 class skill +5 ability mod = 11 Spellcraft check
8th level guy "Takes 10" to craft a Luck Blade, gets 3 wishes and keeps the sword afterward? That'll wreck a game.
5+ICL17+5(no wish) = DC27
18 Int +2(human) +2 levels =22 -> +6 ability mod
8 ranks +3 class skill +6 ability mod = 17 Spellcraft check
Also, where does it say Candle of Invocation is a spell completion item? Any nitwit with a match can activate it. It's "burn a candle, get a Gate, 4200gp to craft." The only check against Deity Tuesdays at the Gate Bar and Grill is that 17th level Clerics aren't likely to pass out Gate Candles.
By comparison, no, the 6th level crafter with 25k to blow who's bound by CLs is absolutely *not* going to cause problems in your game. He's going to get himself a nice shiny +1 flaming burst sword and be done with it. Which is how sane people play this game.
@beej67
As you have said the +5 weapon has ICL 15 and because it's a weapon it requires a CCL of 15, that's a special rule that applies to weapons, armors and shields.
So now we're back to the completely unstated "ICLs are different for weapons" thing..?
Wait, who cares, just pass out Luck Blades. +5 swords are for chumps who apparently don't know what they're doing.
@beej67
Of course the ICL's are different for weapons, armors and shields. And why do you think that this is completely unstated? It's right there in the core.
And why in the name of what's right and good does a 6th level wizard (or 8th) has that kind of money?'
Also the candle of invocation is quite cheap to buy so it's not a real crafting problem.
@beej67
Of course the ICL's are different for weapons, armors and shields. And why do you think that this is completely unstated? It's right there in the core.
It's unstated that you can't bypass the CL .. then again, you're saying the rules just ignore the CL as a requisite anyway. And like I said in my previous post, who cares about +5 anyway? This whole thread is ten times less abusive than just crafting luck blades by how you guys are saying the rules work.
And why in the name of what's right and good does a 6th level wizardy (or o8thu) has that kind of money?'
You been reading the "multiclassing" thread where that dude and his party got wiped by 20 crunchies in an ambush? If one survives, he picks up everyone else's loot. Instant Wealth*5 character. This sort of thing happens all the time in D&D. Not to mention the whole "rich NPC" thing. The rules as you have them laid out place the most powerful magical effects in the hands of anybody with cash.
Also the candle of invocation is quite cheap to buy so it's not a real crafting problem.
Start rolling 4d4 random items on the charts and tell me how many metropolises you have to visit before you find one for sale. (it's medium, not minor)
Letting any 8th level party Gate *is* a problem. Creating a world where any 8th level NPC can Gate is a much, much worse problem, in terms of game continuity. "Ok guys, you know the 8th level CE badguy you're trying to chase down? Well he just Gated in a God. You should have, like, taken his matches away or something. Or made your own Candle of Awesome. I figured you would have learned that after the last two CE badguys Gated in gods."
If that is indeed in fact how the developers intended the game to work, then they clearly weren't thinking ahead to all the implications, and their screwup must be houseruled for any game to work properly. That's really all there is to it.
@beej67
1)I know that it's not clear whether or not the ICL of weapons, armors and shields is mandatory or not (like having the feat) or it's just a +5 but from what i have seen in the boards the general consensus is that it's mandatory.
2)Simply don't let the player take all that gold, provlem solved.
Also about the "rich NPC", woo hoo the game doesn't follow a logical reasoning, big surprise!!!!!!!!!!!! And a 15th level wizard can "take care" most of the people of the world, a high end wizard can snap his fingers and do whatever he wants, whatever the PCs did was capable because the all powerfull gods let them to do that and whatever the PCs are doing is meaningless.
3)They can always order it (in a metropolis), so they wait a couple of weaks to get, big deal.
Anyway it seems that for some reason you don't like the craft rules at all (not that i blame you), then simply ban them from your games.
@beej67
1)I know that it's not clear whether or not the ICL of weapons, armors and shields is mandatory or not (like having the feat) or it's just a +5 but from what i have seen in the boards the general consensus is that it's mandatory.
I appreciate your candor, but the ICL of weapons vs items issue is really a nonissue compared to some of these other implications of crafting items higher than your CL.
2)Simply don't let the player take all that gold, provlem solved.
Also about the "rich NPC", woo hoo the game doesn't follow a logical reasoning, big surprise!!!!!!!!!!!!
Absolutely in no way would I create an artificial and stupid reason why a player can't pick up treasure that's rightfully laying in front of him. And if I was playing in a game where a Roc came down out of the sky and ate all my buddy's loot after he died, I'd quit. Things like World Continuity may not mean much to the modern MMO crowd, but World Continuity is one of the only reasons I choose table top games over other forms of geekertainment.
And if the core rules of a game have major systemic problems for which the only fix is "Easy! Just break world continuity!" then that game is poorly designed. Period. I've been reasonably impressed with both 3.5 and Pathfinder, so I find it hard to believe the developers came this far and then decided "well, we want to change how the crafting rules work, so to support that we suggest you throw game continuity out the window. We think the wonderful new bonus of being able to craft a crystal ball at 3rd level is totally worth the trade. Also, we're going to inform you of this change with a short, poorly worded FAQ about Pearls of Power."
And a 15th level wizard can "take care" most of the people of the world, a high end wizard can snap his fingers and do whatever he wants, whatever the PCs did was capable because the all powerfull gods let them to do that and whatever the PCs are doing is meaningless.
I read this as "yes, the rules may be broken, but you can always let the gods fix it." ? Sloppy game design and I'll have nothing to do with it. See my comments above.
3)They can always order it (in a metropolis), so they wait a couple of weaks to get, big deal.
In the case where (as you say) any schmoo can craft one, then sure they can buy one from any schmoo and cast Gate. Or they can craft it themselves and cast Gate, or any merchant could hire them to make one and cast Gate, or anything in between. If you make people actually maintain a minimum crafter level equal to the CL to craft it by rule, then no, you can't just 'order' it unless the metropolis has 17th level casters that are bored and want to distribute Gates to the general community. The latter makes more sense in a game world.
Anyway it seems that for some reason you don't like the craft rules at all (not that i blame you), then simply ban them from your games.
Or just require PCs be the minimum CL to make the item, and everything suddenly works like it's supposed to work, without merchants summoning Gods for fun, Gods popping in to carry loot away from players for fear they get over some loot-level-table posted on the Valhalla Break Room wall, etc. Which I'll certainly be doing, it appears.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
snip
Luck Blades? Really?
So the argument boils down to "8th level casters with 100,000 gp to blow can really over-equip themselves!"?
I don't know what to tell you beej. CL has never been a Requirement for crafting in 3rd edition. I can point you to a FAQ written by Monte Cook himself that says so.
Don't like it? I guess house rule it.
@beej67
The rules for creating magic has been made very clear in this thread.
The only ones that aren't crystal clear are:
You can skip the ICL minimum of the weapons, armors and shields or not. (i think not but YMMV).
You can craft spell-completion and spell-trigger magic items when you don't have the spell but you have another spellcaster or scroll or something to provide the spell, or not. (i think yes but YMMV).
If you think that the RAW crafting rules aren't the RAI crafting rules and/or aren't any good then i suggest you to move this discussion to the houserules section of the boards.
By the way what does candor mean? (english isn't my first language)
By RAW
The minimum caster level needed to cast the highest level spell that goes into the magic item. (page 548-549 = Magic Item Creation)
(example 3rd level fireball requires you be 5th level wizard = So the minimum CL would be CL 5).
The Craft Magic Arms and Armor has an extra rule. Enchantment Bonus x 3 = minimum CL. (page 468 = Caster level for Weapons).
(example +3 Dagger of Flaming burst = The +3 x 3 = CL 9, The Flaming Burst, (page 470), list CL 12. The higher of the two is used. So the item has CL 12).
...................................
Not by Raw
Many many of the CL number listed for magic items do not match this formula. Why, i have not a clue.
By RAW
Many many of the CL number listed for magic items do not match this formula.
That's true.
By the way what does candor mean? (english isn't my first language)You have the internet. Therefore, you have a dictionary. You don't have to ask us to learn what a word means.
Thank you.
By the way what does candor mean? (english isn't my first language)You have the internet. Therefore, you have a dictionary. You don't have to ask us to learn what a word means.
can·dor   /ˈkændər/ Show Spelled
[kan-der] Show IPA–noun
1. the state or quality of being frank, open, and sincere in speech or expression; candidness: The candor of the speech impressed the audience.
2. freedom from bias; fairness; impartiality: to consider an issue with candor.
3. Obsolete . kindliness.
4. Obsolete . purity.
5. Misspelling of the name of the shrunken city from Krypton in DC comics.
Now with that out of the way, you should only interperate the rules fast and loose to create adventure. Say a jewler lost his wife and went mad. He dedicated his life to make a cubic gate to go to her or bring her to him. It might take him 20 years gametime, but the PCs would only come into the picture when the item was completed. The party cleric might even be talked into helping Mr. Lonely make the item.
snipLuck Blades? Really?
So the argument boils down to "8th level casters with 100,000 gp to blow can really over-equip themselves!"?
The whole thread was originally about 8th level casters trying to craft +5 swords, wasn't it? Lots of folks talking in this thread about how overpowered it is to let lower level players craft +5 weapons. My point is if you're letting some of this other stuff ride, who cares about +5? Same cost as a +2 Luck Blade with 1 wish. Use the wish to "polymorph-any-object" yourself into a hill giant permanently. Or whatever. Certainly no less broken than a +5 sword.
The thing that jacks me about it is most of the game worlds I've developed and played in, you can't just go down to a corner store and get a mage to cast wish (or gate or whatever) for you. There's access issues to spells of that power, built into campaign worlds, for a reason. They've taken extremely rare and game breaking stuff and dialed access down to "anyone with cash." Which I suppose is fine in Eberron where every bartender is Elminster's gym teacher, but doesn't really work for medieval settings, or sylvan settings, or Egyptian settings, etc. Wouldn't even really fit Greyhawk, honestly.
I don't know what to tell you beej. CL has never been a Requirement for crafting in 3rd edition. I can point you to a FAQ written by Monte Cook himself that says so.
Don't like it? I guess house rule it.
Yep, clearly. All it really needs is the ICL thrown back in as a prereq, in terms of house rules. And thanks. And I apologize again if I came across as a jerk anywhere up there. I suppose I just couldn't get my head around why they would set a system up like that, so obviously prone to munchkinism.
|
By the way what does candor mean? (english isn't my first language)You have the internet. Therefore, you have a dictionary. You don't have to ask us to learn what a word means.
If you do not plan on answering it then there is no need to be a jerk.
Just so my head is clear -
You didn't used to be able to ditch out on any listed requirements in 3.5, could you? I looked around in the 3.5srd and can't find anything in there that says you can ditch on a spell requirement.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
Just so my head is clear -
You didn't used to be able to ditch out on any listed requirements in 3.5, could you? I looked around in the 3.5srd and can't find anything in there that says you can ditch on a spell requirement.
No, but if you had any way to cast the spell (Wands, Scrolls, Higher Level Friends, Misc. Single Use Items, etc.), you could use that.
No, but if you had any way to cast the spell (Wands, Scrolls, Higher Level Friends, Misc. Single Use Items, etc.), you could use that.Just so my head is clear -
You didn't used to be able to ditch out on any listed requirements in 3.5, could you? I looked around in the 3.5srd and can't find anything in there that says you can ditch on a spell requirement.
Aha. Yep. There's the ultimate source of my confusion. In 3.5, unless you were drawing the actual spell from a legitimate source, the CL was a de-facto prereq. And in truth someone, somehow, had to be the originator of the spell, and they had to be the right level to craft the scroll or whatever. In Pathfinder, you can make a ring of 3 wishes without ever seeing a wish spell your entire life. Which might not be so bad if it wasn't so easy to Take10 your way past the checks involved in crafting at a much higher level than your own.
Thanks for the help.
If you do not plan on answering it then there is no need to be a jerk.By the way what does candor mean? (english isn't my first language)You have the internet. Therefore, you have a dictionary. You don't have to ask us to learn what a word means.
It's ok, i wasn't offended.
Sure. Zero, Crafting no longer costs XP.
Can you show me exactly where in the core rules it states that?
;)
|
|
It's ok, i wasn't offended.If you do not plan on answering it then there is no need to be a jerk.By the way what does candor mean? (english isn't my first language)You have the internet. Therefore, you have a dictionary. You don't have to ask us to learn what a word means.
Fair enough, it is just nicer if he said "Here is a link to the word, BtW use that site if you wanna know words.", instead of pulling a "Duh, you got a computer".
That stuff irks me.
|
Absolutely I would disagree. It's world-wrecking. If the only check/balance against extreme magic power is wealth, then what does that do to your campaign world? NPCs aren't limited by the wealth chart, and neither is the sole survivor of a near TPW.
Are you or are you not the GM of the game you are running (to be controlling the NPC's)?
The only true check/balance against extreme magic power is the GM. NPC's are not limited by the wealth chart, because they are to be run by the GM, and balanced the way that the GM wants them to be.
As for the Sole survivor of the near TPW, if they do not work with the other players to help everyone have fun, they will most likely not be with that group for long.
If crafting is that much of an issue for you, the real answer is only play in PFS games where it does not exist.
|
|
Sure
There ya go. That only took 3 days. ;)
Now I would be remiss if I didn't point out that the only people concerned with the conversion guide would be players of previous rule sets. A brand new player wouldn't likely bother to check the conversion guide, as they would have no need, and would likely be confused by the reference to XP costs for enchanting within the core rulebook... and this is presuming that they (new players or even old players) were even aware of the conversion guide.
And really, my posts in this thread should be taken with the appropriate amount of sarcasm, as was intended... :)
I think that the volume of debate contained within this thread, and the sheer number of the threads on the site just like this one, indicates that the enchanting rules aren't as clear as one would hope/like.
I personally don't hold the belief that the enchantment rules were left intentionally vague to allow for various play styles. One can make the rules clear and concise and still allow for various play styles via rule 0.
I also believe that one shouldn't have need to expend a considerable amount of effort or have a certain (high)level of reading comprehension/intelligence to understand the rules, or any section thereof.
I know that the majority(?) of (frequent) posters may be of at least university age or higher, and therefore better equipped to sort out the enchantment rules to a certain degree, but it would be best to keep in mind that many younger players are not only interested in this great hobby of ours, but required for continued growth.
As such we should en devour to provide these players with the clearest possible rules or risk possibly alienating them when they grow frustrated.
Just my thoughts anyhow.
Cheers
OK.
Tangent:
Would a mage need any ranks in craft skills then? Or do the feats and Spellcraft meet all prereqs and let you make anything you want?
1) Yes a Mage would need ranks in craft skills... you still need to make a craft roll to successfully make an item.
2) The feats are a Necessary part of making the item.
Craft Potion is REQUIRED to make potions.
Craft Wondrous Item is REQUIRED to craft wondrous items.
Furthermore, the Master Craftsman Skill makes it possible for non caster classes (fighters, barbarians, etc) to make magic items. Without this feat it is impossible for someone to craft a magic item without having at least a caster level equal to the item. A full Wizard/Sorcerer/Cleric/etc would not need this class at all as long as he wasn't multiclassing.
I am gonng BOLD this next statement so that I can clear up some confusion in many of the posts I am reading.
CASTER LEVEL IS A PREREQUISITE FOR CRAFTING MAGIC ITEMS!!!!!
You don't need to house rule that it is required... because it ALREADY IS!!!
Here are the relevent rules which state so:
Setting the Caster Level
From Magic Item Descriptions (Caster Level): For potions, scrolls, and wands, 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. For other magic items, the caster level is determined by the item itself. In this case, the creator's caster level must be as high as the item's caster level (and prerequisites may effectively put a higher minimum on the creator's level).
From Creating Magic Armor: Creating magic armor has a special prerequisite: The creator's caster level must be at least three times the enhancement bonus of the armor....
Creating a magic weapon has a special prerequisite: The creator's caster level must be at least three times the enhancement bonus of the weapon....
A creator can create an item at a lower caster level than her own, but never lower than the minimum level needed to cast the needed spell.
These rules together show that Caster level is a requirement.
It's ok, i wasn't offended.If you do not plan on answering it then there is no need to be a jerk.By the way what does candor mean? (english isn't my first language)You have the internet. Therefore, you have a dictionary. You don't have to ask us to learn what a word means.Fair enough, it is just nicer if he said "Here is a link to the word, BtW use that site if you wanna know words.", instead of pulling a "Duh, you got a computer".
That stuff irks me.
Yes it would be.
I am gonng BOLD this next statement so that I can clear up some confusion in many of the posts I am reading.
CASTER LEVEL IS A PREREQUISITE FOR CRAFTING MAGIC ITEMS!!!!!
You don't need to house rule that it is required... because it ALREADY IS!!!
Here are the relevent rules which state so:
Setting the Caster Level
From Magic Item Descriptions (Caster Level): For potions, scrolls, and wands, 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. For other magic items, the caster level is determined by the item itself. In this case, the creator's caster level must be as high as the item's caster level (and prerequisites may effectively put a higher minimum on the creator's level).These rules together show that Caster level is a requirement.
You can bold all you want, it doesn't make it true.
Also i suggest you check the errata:
Page 460—In the Magic Items Description section,
under Caster Level, delete the last sentence of the
second paragraph.
What do you mean it isn't true? I posted the relative rules which clearly state that it is required.
It clearly states that you cannot set the caster level of the item above your caster level.
and in the same section states that you cannot create items of a caster level below the minimum required to cast the relevent spells.
|
|
And around and around it goes! :)
I'm not going to bold and all caps anything to try and make my points... ;)
The wizard does not need skill ranks in crafting anything to create a magical items. Take a magical sword for instance. He is perfectly able to buy/find/borrow/steal an existing masterwork sword to create a +1 sword. For this he needs only have the Craft Arms and Armor feat*. He then expends his time and gold, meets or bypasses any prerequisites and makes his spellcraft check.
Now if said wizard wants to forge a sword from raw materials, then yes he would need skill ranks in Craft (Weapon Smithing). This is the reason why the cost of a masterwork sword is not included in the cost of enchanting it. The cost of creating a sword and the cost of enchanting it are separate.
As for Master Craftsman? This feat does not directly allow you to craft or enchant anything. It gives you a boost to one craft skill and also allows non-casters to qualify for specific item creation feats (that are usually only attainable by spell casters). They still need to take the requisite item creation feat and then use their craft skill ranks in place of caster level when making their check to see if they successfully enchant an item. They are still required to spend the time and gold, and to meet or bypass the prerequisites. And they would still need to acquire or craft the item to be enchanted, as above.
I won't comment on the CL, because I am trying to refrain from getting involved here... (again! Be there done that in many other threads :)
I have worked out crafting and enchanting rules that work for me and my group and am fine with continuing to use them. I would however, for reasons stated previously, like to see the actual rules cleared up to avoid future issues.
Cheers
*It is really unfortunate that they didn't call the crafting feats something other than crafting (ie Enchanting Arms and Armor) so as to avoid confusion with the crafting skills.
What do you mean it isn't true? I posted the relative rules which clearly state that it is required.
It clearly states that you cannot set the caster level of the item above your caster level.
and in the same section states that you cannot create items of a caster level below the minimum required to cast the relevent spells.
About the italiced part:
It is true but it doesn't mean that you can't create magic items that have a caster level lower than your own.About the bolded part:
The rule say that you can't create potions, scrolls and wands with a caster level above your own, it doesn't say anything about magic items in general.
About the iteliced and bolded part:
And i copy pasted the errata about that section, you can check the errata yourself and see that it's true.
@Lord oKOyA
When was it said (in this thread) that a caster needs craft skills in order to make a magic item? Did i miss something?
No, it clearly states that you CAN create an item BELOW your own caster level.... what you CANNOT do is create an item of at a caster level BELOW THE SPELL WHICH IS IN THE ITEM, whether you have the spell or not.
So, Timmy the level 4 Wizard, CAN create a CL 1 Wand of Magic Missile.
Timmy Cannot Create a CL 2, Wand of Fireballs.
Because Timmy not only cannot cast the Fireball spell (which only gives a +5 to the DC to create it)... but he more importantly does not have the minimum 5th caster level required to even cast Fireball.
So, Timmy the level 4 Wizard, CAN create a CL 1 Wand of Magic Missile.
Timmy Cannot Create a CL 2, Wand of Fireballs.Because Timmy not only cannot cast the Fireball spell (which only gives a +5 to the DC to create it)... but he more importantly does not have the minimum 5th caster level required to even cast Fireball.
First of all, on your example:
As i have said it's not clear in the rules if you can take a +5 in order to skip spells when creating spell-trigger and spell-completion items.Also yes in your example you are correct, Timmy the level 4 Wizard can't create a wand of fireballs (because when you want to create a wand you must meet the caster level of the item) but if he wanted to create a necklace of fireballs he could do it.
No, it clearly states that you CAN create an item BELOW your own caster level.... what you CANNOT do is create an item of at a caster level BELOW THE SPELL WHICH IS IN THE ITEM, whether you have the spell or not.
We aggre on that, the item's caster level (ICL) can't be lower than the caster level needed to cast the highest level spell of the spells needed for the item. But that rule is talking about the item's caster level (ICL), not about the character's caster level (CCL).
The character's caster level isn't a minimum for creating magic items, at least as a general rule.
Wands, potions, scrolls, weapons, armors, and shields (and maybe staves but i am not sure) have exceptions to the general rule of creating a magic item.
|
|
@Lord oKOyA
When was it said (in this thread) that a caster needs craft skills in order to make a magic item? Did i miss something?
A couple posts up from mine...
OK.
Tangent:
Would a mage need any ranks in craft skills then? Or do the feats and Spellcraft meet all prereqs and let you make anything you want?1) Yes a Mage would need ranks in craft skills... you still need to make a craft roll to successfully make an item.
He could have been confusing craft skills with crafts feats... but I thought I wold clarify.
|
|
I do not allow crafters to enchant items above their CL in my game. By that I mean that they cannot set the ICL above their own CCL. Of course this leads to more confusion when using the Master Craftsman feat. Since a caster's CL is equal to his level, and there isn't way I know of off hand that will raise it in regards to crafting magical items. The non-caster, by comparison, using his skill ranks will usually have an effective CL of level (1 rank/level) + ability mod + 3 (class skill) + 2 (Master Craftsman) + other, leading to some balance issues.
And as far as I know, one cannot bypass the spell requirements on spell completion and spell trigger items, even with a +5 penalty.
As I keep saying... madness I say! :)
Cheers
Are you or are you not the GM of the game you are running (to be controlling the NPC's)?
Absolutely I would disagree. It's world-wrecking. If the only check/balance against extreme magic power is wealth, then what does that do to your campaign world? NPCs aren't limited by the wealth chart, and neither is the sole survivor of a near TPW.
Good GMs don't use game balance to set plot.
Good GMs establish NPCs in a world, give them motivations, and give them access to everything else in the world that the PCs have access to, then allow the plot to develop on its own. Good GMs don't contrive things that wouldn't otherwise make sense in that world, just to steer the PCs down the Yellow Plot Road. If any PC in a world can craft a Gate Candle at level 8, then the bad guys can and should craft Gate Candles at level 8. There's nothing worse than a GM who contrives things that make no sense, because the fun part of tabletop gaming is trying to make sense of situations and use your powers of deduction as a PC to figure out what's going on, and how to act.
The moment a group of PCs get together and ask themselves:
"Wait a minute! If the badguy is trying to open a gate to Hades, why doesn't he just craft a candle? We've been able to do that for years!"
...that GM has failed. If Torbash The Hero and Wizban The Mage's only in-play response to each other, in the Wayfarer's Tavern of Totally In-Game Conversation-ness, is "Because Steve doesn't want the game to be cheesy" then everyone just needs to quit playing DND and go play World of Warcraft.
The only true check/balance against extreme magic power is the GM. NPC's are not limited by the wealth chart, because they are to be run by the GM, and balanced the way that the GM wants them to be.
As for the Sole survivor of the near TPW, if they do not work with the other players to help everyone have fun, they will most likely not be with that group for long.
Work with who? The rest of the party is dead. If the last man standing isn't a healer then he buries them on a hill overlooking a lake and hocks their horses for tavern money, hoping to run into some more adventurers to join.
Seems to me that lots of folks in this thread have a pretty major problem differentiating between characters and players. Characters take actions that characters would take, irrespective of the player's feelings. Players have fun playing with other players, regardless what those other player's characters are doing. I can't fathom how many of you would respond in a CN or E campaign.
If crafting is that much of an issue for you, the real answer is only play in PFS games where it does not exist.
Crafting wasn't an issue at all in 3.5, because in order to craft a gate candle you needed a gate spell, as one of many examples. Crafting wouldn't be a problem in Pathfinder either if the craft DCs were high enough such that only people who were of the appropriate CR to have access to gate spells could craft gate candles. The problem with Pathfinder is that the punishment for not meeting the spell prereq is only +5, and the DC is only 5+ICL, and Taking 10 is allowed. As it is, crafting is an end-around by which CR10 individuals can spend some cash and get CR17 abilities. And all that's needed to fix it, is one of many possible simple house rules, as has been pointed about above, so instead of "no crafting" I'll be adopting one of those house rules.
One Fix: Make ICL a prereq, like many in this thread already want to do with +5 swords. Many in this thread think it's unbalancing to allow access to crafting of +5 weapons before the ICL. +5 weapons are the least of your worries when you can spend the same cash and get wishes.
Another Fix: make the spellcraft DC for crafting higher, 10+ICL instead of 5 for instance. I'd have to run the numbers, but that'd make Gate Candles (the perennial example) a 15+17=32 DC, which only people with 22 Spellcraft could take ten on should they not have access to gate (17 if they do). This seems like it'd work about right to me. Alternately, you could leave the core rules at 5+ICL as the DC to craft, but make the skipping the prereq require a +10 on the roll.
Another Fix: no Taking 10.
Any one of those would probably fix it. Some combination would probably do better. But as mentioned above, my participation in this thread really belongs more in the House Rules section of the forums at this point, and I'd planned on staying out of it.
I am gonng BOLD this next statement so that I can clear up some confusion in many of the posts I am reading.
CASTER LEVEL IS A PREREQUISITE FOR CRAFTING MAGIC ITEMS!!!!!
You don't need to house rule that it is required... because it ALREADY IS!!!
Here are the relevent rules which state so:
Setting the Caster Level
From Magic Item Descriptions (Caster Level): For potions, scrolls, and wands, 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. For other magic items, the caster level is determined by the item itself. In this case, the creator's caster level must be as high as the item's caster level (and prerequisites may effectively put a higher minimum on the creator's level).From Creating Magic Armor: Creating magic armor has a special prerequisite: The creator's caster level must be at least three times the enhancement bonus of the armor....
Creating a magic weapon has a special prerequisite: The creator's caster level must be at least three times the enhancement bonus of the weapon....
A creator can create an item at a lower caster level than her own, but never lower than the minimum level needed to cast the needed spell.
These rules together show that Caster level is a requirement.
I agree, but apparently someone over at Paizo decided to remove or rewrite some of that as a nebulous poorly thought out errata, and afterwards Paizo stopped answering magic item crafting questions on the forums, so now we're stuck with the Rules As Written having been Slightly Rewritten into Rules that Suck.
/shrug
According to these guys, anything any character higher than level 10 makes is going to be crafted at ICL20.
You're not going to win that argument against this crowd. I tried, save yourself the time and houserule it back to the way it's supposed to be.
|
|
I agree, but apparently someone over at Paizo decided to remove or rewrite some of that as a nebulous poorly thought out errata, and afterwards Paizo stopped answering magic item crafting questions on the forums, so now we're stuck with the Rules As Written having been Slightly Rewritten into Rules that Suck./shrug
According to these guys, anything any character higher than level 10 makes is going to be crafted at ICL20.
You're not going to win that argument against this crowd. I tried, save yourself the time and houserule it back to the way it's supposed to be.
I mostly agree with your first statement. :)
As to the ICL20 comment (and I hope you aren't including me in "these guys" :), I would just point out, to what benefit? For most items, even if you allowed ICL to be set higher than CCL, this only results in more expensive items that are more resistant to dispel magic, but otherwise no more effective. Gold costs and crafting time will still be the determining factor in most cases.
I mean, why spend(waste) the extra gold and time to make something no more effective by raising its ICL unless you anticipate it having to resist dispel magic?
Cheers
This is what the rules state:
From Magic Item Descriptions (Caster Level): For potions, scrolls, and wands, 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. For other magic items, the caster level is determined by the item itself. In this case, the creator's caster level must be as high as the item's caster level (and prerequisites may effectively put a higher minimum on the creator's level).
This is what SKR wrote at the end of a response concerning the Caster Level of a Pearl of Power:
"[A 3rd lvl Wizard] can even try to make a 3rd-level pearl, though the minimum caster level is 5, and he adds +5 to the DC because he doesn't meet the "able to cast 3rd-level spells" requirement."
Seeing as how this one sentence answering a question about Pearls of Power, is in direct contradiction to many paragraphs of rules which have been published... I'm going to say that this sentence is wrong.
In other words... Sean K Reynolds forgot about this. Try not to be to harsh on him for it.
This is what the rules state:
From Magic Item Descriptions (Caster Level): For potions, scrolls, and wands, 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. For other magic items, the caster level is determined by the item itself. In this case, the creator's caster level must be as high as the item's caster level (and prerequisites may effectively put a higher minimum on the creator's level).
This is what SKR wrote at the end of a response concerning the Caster Level of a Pearl of Power:
"[A 3rd lvl Wizard] can even try to make a 3rd-level pearl, though the minimum caster level is 5, and he adds +5 to the DC because he doesn't meet the "able to cast 3rd-level spells" requirement."
Seeing as how this one sentence answering a question about Pearls of Power, is in direct contradiction to many paragraphs of rules which have been published... I'm going to say that this sentence is wrong.
In other words... Sean K Reynolds forgot about this. Try not to be to harsh on him for it.
No he didn't.
Matthias_DM please go and check the errata, the last sentence of this paragraph of the rules has beed deleted.
As to the ICL20 comment (and I hope you aren't including me in "these guys" :), I would just point out, to what benefit? For most items, even if you allowed ICL to be set higher than CCL, this only results in more expensive items that are more resistant to dispel magic, but otherwise no more effective. Gold costs and crafting time will still be the determining factor in most cases.
Gold costs and crafting time are only rarely dependent on ICL, and on those cases sure, players are going to keep the ICL down. (think: staves)
But for wondrous items, gold cost and crafting time is completely independent of ICL. In fact, since there's no cost difference between a bag of holding crafted at ICL1 and ICL20, a character with Craft Wondrous Item can upgrade the ICL instantly whenever he likes, to whatever value he'd like to set, for free. He just has to make the roll. And if he takes 10 on the roll, then there's no risk of any drawback.
An 8th level mage:
INT 20 (+5)
Spellcraft 11
takes 10 on his crafting check, and rolls a 10+11+5=26, on his DC 25 check to upgrade his bag of holding (or whatever) to ICL20. Not particularly gross, but hey, it's free!
Pretty much wallpaper's the 7th level druid spell Transmute Metal to Wood, doesn't it? Also bones dispelling/suppressing of items.
And all that silliness is supposedly supported by the Pathfinder guys. That's how they envision the rules working.
No he didn't.
Matthias_DM please go and check the errata, the last sentence of this paragraph of the rules has beed deleted.
And shouldn't have been deleted. But was. Go figure.
Did they ever state why they deleted it? It's such a poorly thought out gaffe.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
+1 to what Leo said. It was apparently copied from the wrong version of the SRD and wasn't caught until people started asking questions about it.
It has been errata'd, it is no longer relevant.
According to these guys, anything any character higher than level 10 makes is going to be crafted at ICL20.You're not going to win that argument against this crowd. I tried, save yourself the time and houserule it back to the way it's supposed to be.
I'm not sure if I actually made that argument, if so, I didn't mean to. For clarities sake, here's how I think it works.
Items you create use either the minimum/default ICL or your CCL, whichever is higher.
The exception to this is items that have an effect based on CL. Those you have to pay extra to increase their ICL.
|
|
Well, see that is why in my game, if you enchant say Sovereign Glue at ICL 20 it costs more than if you enchant it at ICL 10. The enchanting isn't free in my game (and I'm not sure that it is in Pathfinder).
If you have a CCL of 20 and can set the ICL at whatever level you want in between, say between 3rd and 20th, and make the glue at ICL 10, it will cost you 500gp to craft. 2 (spell level) x 10 (ICL) x 50 = 1000gp divided in half for cost. If you want to craft the glue at ICL 20 then you will pay double to have the benefit of the harder to dispel (magic) glue. (2x20x50)/2 It will also take 2 days to craft instead of 1.
If you apply that to items that have a base cost in the tens of thousands, or higher, then those increments become a serious factor. You could be talking about the difference of 20, 40 or 80 days needed to craft and a similar multiplication in gold.
And of course, I don't allow crafters to set the ICL higher than their own CCL. If you are CCL 10 then you cannot make the glue at anything higher, and cannot go back and raise the ICL of anything already crafted without spending more time, gold and a new check. Definitely not for free...
No he didn't.
Matthias_DM please go and check the errata, the last sentence of this paragraph of the rules has beed deleted.And shouldn't have been deleted. But was. Go figure.
Did they ever state why they deleted it? It's such a poorly thought out gaffe.
I am not sure it was a mistake, because this thing was also put (by mistake again) in the APG but in that book's errata they removed it.
Also this thread is supposed to be about the rules as they are (that's why it's the rules section), i can understand what you are saying about breaking the world but i share Happler's opinion on why this isn't a big deal so i don't see a big problem with the rules as they are now. If you do you can always rule it differently in your games.PS After playing another game for the past year and half that has A LOT more problems and if you judge the setting world by the rules then the half (the second one) the history of the setting is wrong and should never have happened, i don't have a problem with PF rules on magic items.
I have just read through the official Errata on the Paizo's Reference Document online.
You are correct. They did delete that portion of the description.
But they didn't delete this portion.
"A creator can create an item at a lower caster level than her own, but never lower than the minimum level needed to cast the needed spell. "
This statement is extrapolated from it: A creator cannot create an item if their CL is lower than the miniumum level needed to cast the spell.
That is under the General Item Creation rules above the more specific rules for each type of magic item. Thus, this rule still applies. A necklace of Fireballs still has a CL requirement. The other items (armor, weapons, potions etc) have there own exceptions/specifications to this rule.
My guess as to why the deleted the sentence for the other portion... was that it was repetative.
I have just read through the official Errata on the Paizo's Reference Document online.
You are correct. They did delete that portion of the description.
But they didn't delete this portion."A creator can create an item at a lower caster level than her own, but never lower than the minimum level needed to cast the needed spell. "
This statement is extrapolated from it: A creator cannot create an item if their CL is lower than the miniumum level needed to cast the spell.
That is under the General Item Creation rules above the more specific rules for each type of magic item. Thus, this rule still applies. A necklace of Fireballs still has a CL requirement. The other items (armor, weapons, potions etc) have there own exceptions/specifications to this rule.
My guess as to why the deleted the sentence for the other portion... was that it was repetative.
You are reading it wrong, this sentence refers to the item's caster level and not to the character's.
This sentence means that you cannot create an item that requires a second level spell that has a lower ICL than 3.It means that you don't have to use your full caster level at every item you create.
It means that can't create a scroll of create pit that has a caster level of 1.
It means that a 5th level wizard has the option to create a scroll of create pit that has a caster level of 3 and not 5.
I guess I am running on the assumption that a character cannot increase his own caster level arbitrarily without leveling as a caster....
... and that being able to create a magical effect above your caster level would in essence be doing just that.
This means that a character could create a Type 2 necklace of fireballs at level 3 in 3 days. DC is 5 + 7 CL + 5 for not having fireball.... so 17.
A characters skill at that level would be:
+3 Ranks
+3 Trained
+3 Int Mod
+3 Skill Focus
+12 in total. To start whipping a level 3 spell 2 levels early.
I guess I am running on the assumption that a character cannot increase his own caster level arbitrarily without leveling as a caster....
... and that being able to create a magical effect above your caster level would in essence be doing just that.
This means that a character could create a Type 2 necklace of fireballs at level 3 in 3 days. DC is 5 + 7 CL + 5 for not having fireball.... so 17.
A characters skill at that level would be:
+3 Ranks
+3 Trained
+3 Int Mod
+3 Skill Focus+12 in total. To start whipping a level 3 spell 2 levels early.
That's about the size of it Matthias. And you don't need to be a mage to do it either, just somebody with spellcraft. Do it as a Paladin. While wearing plate mail. So dumb.
They came out with an errata that was confusing and didn't really explain their intent with it, but the generally accepted (it turns out) interpretation of the errata said crafters could make items that utilized spells before spellcasters could conceivably get at those spells. Then Paizo went silent in answering questions about how silly that is.
So houserule it, because you're not going to convince the Paizo forums otherwise.
Which sorta stinks, I was hoping Pathfinder would be a system that didn't require a bunch of houserules to play. /shrug. At least it's free.