Well you did come off a little bit like a jerk, Nigres. Which I didn't really mind so much because it made me sound like less of a jerk by comparison. Hehe.
@Nigrescence
Don't worry, i wasn't offended or anything. I have been for SO long in forums full of vitriol that now the Paizo forums seem too polite and civil to me.
@beej67
Bunch of houserules to play?
Nah, i don't think that this is too much.
@beej67
Bunch of houserules to play?
Nah, i don't think that this is too much.
True true, it's only a small houserule/fix. But I've only been playing PF about two months, and I've already had to rewrite the crafting rules AND go back and fix all the item costs for staves in the APG, since most of those were calculated improperly. At this rate next year I'll have a houserule list about as long as I did for 3.5. Hehe.
:)
But again, you get what you pay for, and so far Pathfinder is free for me. I do appreciate Paizo's business model, and I can't complain about poor service when I'm not paying for any. Lol.
Yeah, I really don't see your gripe on this point unless characters have wealth like Scrooge McDuck, and if that's the case then you've already borked things far beyond criticism of the mostly balanced crafting system.
My game just switched from 3.5 to PF, and several of them are watching this thread. As someone in my game who's watching this thread texted to me earlier:
"So wait, the most powerful character class in Pathfinder is the Investment Banker?"
Axiom: if the only thing balancing your crafting system is the cost to craft, then the crafting system is not balanced.
Yeah, I really don't see your gripe on this point unless characters have wealth like Scrooge McDuck, and if that's the case then you've already borked things far beyond criticism of the mostly balanced crafting system.My game just switched from 3.5 to PF, and several of them are watching this thread. As someone in my game who's watching this thread texted to me earlier:
"So wait, the most powerful character class in Pathfinder is the Investment Banker?"
Axiom: if the only thing balancing your crafting system is the cost to craft, then the crafting system is not balanced.
I think that in most tebletop games the DM exercises his powers more directly and more frequently that you do (or seen), i am not saying that it's wrong about either way of playing, i am just saying that for most poeple this isn't as big problem as it is for you since many DMs wouldn't let their players crack the system.
Also i don't think that this is a good thread for someone you had just began PF.
Axiom: if the only thing balancing your crafting system is the cost to craft, then the crafting system is not balanced.Except that's completely wrong.
Allow me to rephrase:
If the only thing balancing the crafting system is an assumption about player wealth, then that crafting system fails under all but the strictest of game environments, and is completely ill equipped to adapt to different scopes of campaign world, or to different situations that might arise in the course of a game. At no time should a GM feel rules pressure to make loot evaporate.
DND 3.5's crafting system was equipped to adapt to different scopes of campaign world, because there was more than one inflationary control. Pathfinder's crafting system appeared to be similarly equipped to adapt to different scopes of campaign world, until they decided to strike a couple of very important power controls out of it, in an errata, and didn't explain why.
What benefit did that errata bring? Did they say? Was one of them planning on playing a Paladin who threw fireballs at 3rd level or something?
I think that in most tebletop games the DM exercises his powers more directly and more frequently that you do (or seen), i am not saying that it's wrong about either way of playing, i am just saying that for most poeple this isn't as big problem as it is for you since many DMs wouldn't let their players crack the system.
Also i don't think that this is a good thread for someone you had just began PF.
In my game we're rotating GMs, within the same party, and the combined roleplaying experience in our group is well over 100 years, including one player who's a full time college professor of "game design." I've been playing DND since 1984. We're not rookies, we're compiling a campaign as we go for fun, and we just shifted to PF.
But your observation about DMs exercising their power is a good one. We're not, we're developing a campaign world, and now apparently also tweaking the rules themselves, to make it so GMs don't have to keep their thumb on the players - the rules of the game should do that for them. That's really the only way to make a GM rotation work. And honestly, rotating GM games are soooo much more fun than what's become the norm in tabletop because you eliminate the burnout factor.
No, you didn't have to rewrite the crafting rules at all. You wanted to rewrite them. As for the staff cost lists, I haven't personally investigated them in depth, but I wouldn't be surprised if you're missing something that is important to the cost. For example, the CL of the staff is extremely important in the cost of the staff. The amount of charges used per spell is also a big factor.True true, it's only a small houserule/fix. But I've only been playing PF about two months, and I've already had to rewrite the crafting rules AND go back and fix all the item costs for staves in the APG, since most of those were calculated improperly.@beej67
Bunch of houserules to play?
Nah, i don't think that this is too much.
No, I'm doing it right, there's a whole thread on it. What apparently happened was whoever priced out the staves in the APG used the price derived as the "marketplace cost" instead of the "cost to craft," whereas the staves in the core rules used the same formula but assigned it to be the "cost to craft." There's a x2 markup on staves in the core rules compared to the APG.
I was doing it wrong at first, was kindly corrected on how to do it right, and I proceeded to cross check about a dozen staves. Read down to the bottom. Feel free to add to the list any more staves you'd like to check. I wrote a spreadsheet to save myself some time.
Staff - predicted cost via the math - Paizo listed market price - Paizo listed crafting price
(bolded indicates the closest match to the math)
Core:
Staff of Healing - 14,800 - 29,600 - 14,800
Staff of Frost - 20,667 - 41,400 - 20,700
Staff of Necromancy - 40,950 - 82,000 - 41,000
Staff of Charming - 8,800 - 17,600 - 8,800
Staff of Fire - 9,467 - 18,950 - 9,475
Staff of Evocation - 40,950 - 82,000 - 41,000APG:
Staff of Weather - 42,033 - 44,200 - 22,100
Staff of Stealth - 18,400 - 18,400 - 9,200
Staff of Shrieking - 14,400 - 14,400 - 7,200
Staff of Many Rays - 28,600 - 52,800 - 26,400
Staff of Vision - 41,250 - 41,250 - 20,625
Staff of Traps - 20,400 - 21,200 - 10,600I'm going off of the list prices at www.d20pfsrd.com .. are those correct?
Looks like almost all the staves in the APG are on 50% discount.
I highly encourage you to check my numbers and add more data points to the test, but you should do so in that thread instead of this one.
Wealth has always been and will always be a factor for any game system that uses wealth tied to items. You are ignoring completely my point that if wealth was not a factor, any character could just BUY the stuff.
There is an availability system built into Pathfinder, that's quite good and works very well. It cuts off the easily available stuff at 'minor' items. Everything else has to be rolled. This is an excellent system that works very well in a campaign setting, and is fun too.
You are also ignoring inherent restrictions in the item crafting system. Wealth is NOT the only thing balancing the crafting system.
When any 10th level guy can make any 20th level widget, it's pretty close to the only restriction.
What are you saying? The errata (if it's the one I think you're referring to) was a clarification, not a drastic change.
Striking the lines from the written rule that prohibited PCs from crafting items with ICLs over their own CL was a drastic change.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
The other restriction you have to keep in mind is that making a magic item requires time and devotion. Sure, you can make a 120k gold item for only 60k gold, but it will take you 120 days to do it (or 60 if you can withstand the increased DC to speed it up). That's nothing to sneeze at. You can only be making one item at a time, too. Wilbur the Wizard is spending 120 days to make this item, while Fred the Fighter buys his stuff right away. Frankly, if your PCs have too much money to go around, I'd be more worried about Fred breaking your game, because poor old Wilbur will still be working on that item, probably a level or two after he started (if not more).
Excellent point. Who's to say Fred the Fighter didn't find one of whatever doodad Wilbur is crafting during his 4 months of adventuring? Failing that, he now out-levels Wilbur quite handily, and can probably take said doodad from Wilbur by force.
High-level equipment doesn't make you invincible, after all.
Look, guys, first off, lets get something very clear. I'm only responding to defend my own viewpoint, not to invalidate yours. You have your views, I have mine, the developers have theirs, and I have a house, in which I can make house rules. The world is a happy place.
Your views are no more or less valid than mine, we can both walk away from the discussion and if you're ever in my neck of the woods I'll buy you a beer. I'm merely responding to criticism, that's all.
There is an availability system built into Pathfinder, that's quite good and works very well. It cuts off the easily available stuff at 'minor' items. Everything else has to be rolled. This is an excellent system that works very well in a campaign setting, and is fun too.Apparently it doesn't work well to you, because obviously it can be completely ignored, right? Wrong. Look, they can just visit a town later, and keep on trying. Or visit other towns. Or they can just try ordering things and wait a while. These are all ways to overcome this "restriction" if all of your characters essentially have unlimited wealth. That's not an argument against the system. That's an argument against giving out unlimited wealth.
I've already discussed both. Take some dice, have a seat, pop some popcorn, and start rolling random items until you pull a Luck Blade. (for example) Don't post again until you roll one. Tell me how many times you had to exit and reenter the metropolis before you got it. Don't post until you have the answer.
All game systems, just like engineering systems, benefit from multiple redundant controls. Pulling controls that work, and make sense, out completely without a good reason is dumb. I have yet to hear a good reason why crafters can craft ICLs above their CCL. I have heard a lot of "it's not as broken as you say it is" and none of "this is why it's cool."
Yes, Fukushima Reactor 2 probably didn't need a secondary containment facility, considering it just blew up due to hydrogen accumulation, but that's no reason to errata it out of the design without good reason.
When any 10th level guy can make any 20th level widget, it's pretty close to the only restriction.Except that they can't just flatly make any 20th level item, and certainly not "any" 10th level guy can do it. I'll ask you to stop using absurdly wrong statements, because it just makes you look ridiculous and makes it look like you don't understand the very system you're trying to criticize.
Any properly built 10th level wizard is going to have a 20 int (or more, with gear) and maxed spellcraft. I'm not even taking credit for skill focus feats or crazy racial traits or anything. If I wanted to be extreme, I'd start talking about the wizard who first crafts himself a +6 INT headband, or the one who spends feats on bumping his spellcraft, which is also BTW quite common.
Technically, CL17 is all you need for basically anything in the book, not 20, which is a spellcraft check of 27 skipping the spell prereq. Technically, if my wizard crafts a +6 int headband first, and takes an 18 at chargen (as all of them do) throws +2 in for being human, and he's +8 to the roll. Technically, if I take skill focus (+3) I can craft ICL20 items at 3rd level. Right?
Spellcraft Ranks: 3
Class skill: 3
Skill Focus: 3
Int Bonus: 8
Take 10: 10
That's a 27 spellcraft roll without rolling, by a 3rd level character. Crafts anything in the book. I was being generous to your side of the argument talking about 10th level characters. A 10th level character making a 27 spellcraft check is routine. A 3rd level character making one is extreme, but even then only because of the gear. Don't paint my routine example as extreme.
The other restriction you have to keep in mind is that making a magic item requires time and devotion. Sure, you can make a 120k gold item for only 60k gold, but it will take you 120 days to do it (or 60 if you can withstand the increased DC to speed it up). That's nothing to sneeze at.
Well sure. You as the GM can prevent your players from crafting by using plot. You can also prevent your players from using any of their skills or powers by using plot. That doesn't mean you should. If you were complaining about the lockpicking system, I could retort "fine, just don't put any locks in the game, just put a giant boulder in front of every door." But I wouldn't.
In my games, the wizard crafts while the fighter raises his hippogriff egg, or builds his castle. Downtime actions are important to players. It gives them a way to flesh out their characters. If you're playing a game with zero downtime, then you've already nerfed all the crafting feats past scroll and potion, and it doesn't matter whether the system "works" or not, because it's unusable.
Where was this written? Unless I missed something, that is.
See Methias's many quotes above, including the ones his argument was originally based on that were removed from the rules per errata.
"but it says right there" .. "no, they crossed those sentences out on page whatever of the errata"
|
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.No, his CL is only tied to his ranks in the skill with Master Craftsman. There is a big difference between how many ranks you have in a skill and what your skill bonus is, namely that ranks can never be above your HD, and that many things can give a skill bonus. Nothing gives an actual bonus to your ranks. The non-caster, using his skill ranks, would have an effective CL equal to his ranks in the skill. That's all. No class skill bonus. No ability mod, and no other or Master Craftsman. None of those will raise his actual ranks in the skill. Only putting ranks in the skill will raise his actual ranks.
Good point. That is better. Fixes my issue with Master Craftsman.
Cheers
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
I have yet to hear a good reason why crafters can craft ICLs above their CCL. I have heard a lot of "it's not as broken as you say it is" and none of "this is why it's cool."
Because Caster Level isn't always a good indicator of an item's power level.
Compare Cloak of Displacement, Minor to Cloak of Elvenkind. Both are CL 3 items because both are based on 2nd level spells, but one (displacement) is a much much more powerful item than the other. This is reflected in the price, 24,000 gp for the former, 2,500 for the latter.
At the other end of the CL spectrum, compare the CL 17, 200,000 gp Mirror of Life Trapping to the Orb of Storms, an item worth a quarter of the price despite being one CL higher.
Even if we accept 'CL as a Requirement' as being a backup safety feature, it's not a very good one.
I think you'd be better off limiting the crafters ability to take a 10 instead. Maybe say that, if you're adding 5 to the DC to get past Reqs, you can't take a 10 (on account of it no longer being a routine task?)
I have yet to hear a good reason why crafters can craft ICLs above their CCL. I have heard a lot of "it's not as broken as you say it is" and none of "this is why it's cool."
Because Caster Level isn't always a good indicator of an item's power level.
Compare Cloak of Displacement, Minor to Cloak of Elvenkind. Both are CL 3 items because both are based on 2nd level spells, but one (displacement) is a much much more powerful item than the other. This is reflected in the price, 24,000 gp for the former, 2,500 for the latter.
At the other end of the CL spectrum, compare the CL 17, 200,000 gp Mirror of Life Trapping to the Orb of Storms, an item worth a quarter of the price despite being one CL higher.
Even if we accept 'CL as a Requirement' as being a backup safety feature, it's not a very good one.
I think you'd be better off limiting the crafters ability to take a 10 instead. Maybe say that, if you're adding 5 to the DC to get past Reqs, you can't take a 10 (on account of it no longer being a routine task?)
Reasonable points. I've been mulling over a different tact entirely recently, after crunching through the numbers. Leave the Taking 10 in, and up the Spellcraft DC so it's not so laughable. If you simply make it 10 + ICL instead of 5 + ICL, then Taking 10 on the roll puts you about where you need to be in terms of CR, and if you want to risk going higher than your CCL, then you need to make some rolls and take some risks. Likewise, I think a 10 point penalty for each missing prereq is much more appropriate than 5, that way creators still have the option to craft out of their safe zone, but typically on items lower than their own CCL so the checks are easier.
But again, that's more a topic for the House Rules forum.
|
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.
Did you miss the fact that my whole sentence was a link to the word in a dictionary? I did answer it. It's not a big assumption to think that anyone using a forum like this has the ability and willingness to follow a link. I did all the work for him.
Maybe next time you should check to see if there was a link before you accuse me of something that wasn't the case.
If you had the ability to provide the link (and yes it was noticed, the snark attached to it was intentional and un-needed.
It is also not a large assumption to believe that those asking for help are not looking to be belittled. Nor much of an assumption to think the person looking for the help was ESL at the very least.
All that was needed, since you know how to provide a link, was:
Candor
So maybe next time just show some civility and manners in those situations.
No, his CL is only tied to his ranks in the skill with Master Craftsman. There is a big difference between how many ranks you have in a skill and what your skill bonus is, namely that ranks can never be above your HD, and that many things can give a skill bonus. Nothing gives an actual bonus to your ranks. The non-caster, using his skill ranks, would have an effective CL equal to his ranks in the skill. That's all. No class skill bonus. No ability mod, and no other or Master Craftsman. None of those will raise his actual ranks in the skill. Only putting ranks in the skill will raise his actual ranks.
Are you suggesting that when a character uses an item creation feat, which they qualified for using Master Craftsman, their bonus to the die roll is linked only to their ranks in the relevant skill?
ie, all level 10 fighters with Master Craftsman, Craft Magic Arms and Armour and 10 Ranks in Craft (Armour) have the same chance to create a particular piece of magic armour? Regardless of whether one has a higher Int than another.
Or are you going off the Master Craftsman description that states base CL is equal to ranks in the relevant skill - for the purpose of qualifying for the item creation feat only? ie you need to have six ranks in Craft (Armour) to take Create Magic Arms and Armour. But if you have high Int or have a relevant Skill Focus etc you add those bonuses to your actual craft roll when creating a piece of magic armour.
I want to say I’ve been following this thread closely as in my current campaign, I am a Sorcerer who plans to go down the crafting route. (Yes, Sorcerer, you heard that right. :) ) It just makes sense for the current campaign we are in and we have no Wizard.
But also following this closely, as some of you already know, I was the one who asked Sean (Reynolds) the question if a 17th level Wizard could craft the Bag of Holding at his current level. Because by reading the rules, it seemed you could only craft at your current level with scrolls, wands and potions, where other items were at the item’s caster level. But as you saw, Sean did clarify that for me. Believe it or, the magic item’s caster level does make a difference in our campaign as our DM likes to cast Dispel Magic. :)
To beej, I understand what you are saying, and not trying to sound rude, but I do feel you are blowing things way out of proportion. Unless you truly like to play a monty haul campaign, wealth is a good balancing factor for a campaign. Not just for magic items, but as others have said, for the campaign in general.
Like with my DM, with all the campaigns he has run, we have had to scrape by and save if we wanted that nice magic item. I know with one of our higher level campaigns, where our characters levels are in our mid to late teens, having 30,000 GP on us was a LOT. You can just imagine what it was like when we were at level 10, or even lower. We could never imagine forging a +5 sword, much less a +3.
But you are right, if wealth is given out liberally, then it will unbalance the game. But as others have said, it will unbalance the campaign, period. As then the characters can go down to the local Magi-Mart and buy their +5 weapon. It really depends on how the DM run his campaigns. I have played under a DM who hands out money and treasure like the drop of a hat and it is nowhere as fun as my current DM.
Or are you going off the Master Craftsman description that states base CL is equal to ranks in the relevant skill - for the purpose of qualifying for the item creation feat only? ie you need to have six ranks in Craft (Armour) to take Create Magic Arms and Armour. But if you have high Int or have a relevant Skill Focus etc you add those bonuses to your actual craft roll when creating a piece of magic armour.
Yes. This is what I'm saying, as my previous paragraphs explained.
Also note that the CL equal to the ranks in the skill also is an important qualification for the enhancement bonus you can add to a weapon/armor/shield. Remember that you can only add an enhancement bonus up to 1/3 your CL (and this limitation cannot be bypassed in any way - you must have a CL equal to or greater than 3x the enhancement bonus you wish to make).
Well given I asked the question, aspects of your previous posts weren't as clear to others as they were to you ;)
That aside, based on previous posts by a dev (SR perhaps), the CL3 3x the enhancement bonus "prerequisite" is yet another requirement that can be circumvented with a +5 to the DC. Various other threads have covered that specific point and there are multiple opinions on it. So we could all post back and forth on the issue and get nowhere - unless there is a definitive ruling from Paizo (which afaik hasn't happened yet).
One relatively simple solution, speaking as a professional editor, is to tighten up the wording used in the RAW. If Paizo is going to stick to the term "prerequisite" then the use of the adjectives "hard" and "soft" (or some similar terminology) in front of prerequisites would be handy. This would differentiate those things that the creator absolutely, positively, unavoidably must have, from those things that would be nice to have but can be circumvented with a +5 to the DC per missing thing. Technically, if something is called a "prerequisite" but can be avoided somehow (ie +5 DC) then it is no longer a prerequisite - and therefor should be called something else.
Every aspect of creating magic items would fall into one or other of those categories. No more prerequisites that aren't necessarily prerequisites, the "specific" trumps the "general" description issue etc. Technically, if something is called a "prerequisite" but can be avoided some how (ie +5 DC) then it is no longer a prerequisite - and therefor should be called something else.
for example (as suggestions, not necessarily my personal view as, based on the various magic item creation threads, there are many different views)
Hard prerequisite:
- for all magic item creation: the relevant feat
- for creating a Wand: item creation feat and the spell (either known, memorised or from another magic item)
- for creating a ring: item creation feat
Soft prerequisite (+5 DC if missing):
- for creating a Wonderous item: the relevant spell used in creation
- etc
As for the whole CL issue, that's a whole other bag of worms. Though it is one that I think can also be clarified with some simple rewriting/editing by the devs. Perhaps CL equals the lowest caster level required to cast the highest level spell used in creating the item. So a Wiz3 can have a crack at crafting a Wonderous Item that has a level 9 spell in it, but the DC will be high and the chance of failure greater.
I also think, linked to the above point, there should be no taking 10 in creating magic items, but also that 1 is not an auto-fail and 20 not an auto-success. That way there is a risk of losing a lot of money if you roll poorly, but for many items, provided the bonuses to your Spellcraft (or equivalent) are higher enough there is little risk of failure.
Perhaps you can only take 10 if your CL level is equal to or higher than the item CL - to avoid any risk of failure in creating level appropriate items. Or at least CCL = ICL as a "soft prerequisite" to add another level of difficulty if you aren't high enough to cast the spells used in the item creation.
I disagree only because it seems like a cheap shot at gimping the item creation system which, if I recall correctly, was not made to be horrendously difficult in Pathfinder to begin with. Additionally, it doesn't fit by the RAW, and would be a strange exception to the rules. Finally, it would severely hurt a non-spellcaster with the Master Craftsman feat who is already hurt enough simply by not having access to spells.
Also, there never was an auto-fail or auto-success with crafting to begin with.
I agree with this. In fact Sean had also told me in another thread (I believe the same one already linked in this thread) that ‘Taking 10’ is fine as magic item creation is intended to be easy.
It’s the time and money that is the balancing factor.
Although I will say crafting can be ‘auto-success’ if you want to wait long enough for enough Spellcraft ranks to make your item. I know if I am going to make an expensive item, I am not going to leave chance (or at least very little) in blowing that roll and losing a lot of money. I am going to take ‘Take 10’ that will make sure I get my success roll.
I would say that you could have the spell in a scroll or caster, as less of a rules violation. I think you should have armor wearing give a minus to crafting. Before I get flamed for not reading everything 10 times, yes, I have yet to check the rules to see if armor has an effect on crafting. No I have not read the entire topic 10 times yet either. Deal with it.
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.
Caster level required. Found under Magic Item Descriptions.
For Magic Armor, The creator's caster level must be at least three times the enhancement bonus of the armor. If an item has both an enhancement bonus and a special ability, the higher of the two caster level requirements must be met
Caster level required. Found under Creating Magic Armor.
For Magic WeaponsThe creator's caster level must be at least three times the enhancement bonus of the weapon. If an item has both an enhancement bonus and a special ability, the higher of the two caster level requirements must be met.
Caster Level required. Found under Creating Magic Weapons
For Staves, Prerequisite: Caster level 11th.
For Rods Prerequisite: Caster level 9th.
For Wondrous ItemsPrerequisite: Caster level 3rd.
These caster levels are found under the relative Feat which is necessary to create these items.
This seems wrong, so something tells me that the started to fix this section of the old rules... reallizing that CL requirements for item creation were in two separate locations and forgot to add it in after they removed it from one of the locations.
NOTE: the bold below was the sentence they removed from the CL portion of Magic Item Descriptions, which I believe they meant to replace in the other sections.
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).
Matthias, this line:
For other magic items, the caster level is determined by the item itself.
was the reason I had asked Sean in the other thread if I could craft a Bag of Holding at my level, in my example of a 17th level Wizard. I wanted the option to craft a wonderous item at a higher level than the minimum you could create the wonderous item. And Sean had said yes, you can. So I am not really sure what that ‘determined by the item itself’ is about.
Well either...
...they meant to radically change the way ONLY Staves, Wondrous Items, and Rods were created. <-- Makes no sense why only those items.
... or there was an error made while trying to streanline the Crafting rules... they cut and forgot to paste. <-- Makes Sense.
I would suggest that Sean is either simply interpretting the RAW, which would make him correct. Yes, as far as the rules state, you CAN do what you asked. However, I don't believe this is RAI.
I think you are wrong as there is nothing in the RAW to interpret that anything besides potions, scrolls and wands you can set the CL. If that was the case, I would have never asked the question in the first place.
Also, as the answer is coming from one of the lead designers of the game, I am taking it as RAI. Why wouldn’t it be? I don’t see a reason to make potions, scrolls and wands exclusive in that you can only set the caster level with them, but not be able to do so when crafting other types of magical items.
The Periapt of Health, at it's minimum level, would not protect your character from contracting Lycantrophy. There needs to be a 12th or higher creator level. Note that The Beastiary came out after the Core Rulebook.
Why does it make sense to you that a King can supply the wealth to a level 3 character to create a Robe of the Archmagi with a DC 24 check and 75 days as his only requirement?
what makes sense is that this should be impossible for a low level artisan and left for greater people.
Why does it make sense to you that a King can supply the wealth to a level 3 character to create a Robe of the Archmagi with a DC 19 check and 75 days as his only requirement?
what makes sense is that this should be impossible for a low level artisan and left for greater people.
The major disjunction between your point of view, Matthias, and Nigrescence's point of view, is in how you two value world believability. There are some DND games where the characters in the game world might actually have a conversation that goes like this:
Wizban: "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 since we were kids!"
Torbash: "Because that would wreck the plot."
And there are other games where the characters would never say such a thing. You and I want our game worlds to be of the latter kind, Nigrescence is fine with the former, and in the end that's a matter of preference. I suspect as a general rule, older players opt for the latter, and the newer generation raised on MMOs see no problem with the former. In the end there's nothing inherently wrong with either I suppose.
It would actually be very easy for an intelligent character.
lvl 3 Human Expert (NPC)
+3 Ranks
+3 Trained
+3 Int Bonus (higher end of normal)
+3 Skill Focus
+2 Master Craftsman
+2 Masterwork Artisan Tools
= +16 (taking a 10 = 26)
Feats = Skill Focus, Master Craftsman, Craft Wondrous Item
This NPC could make a living working as an master crafter in the kings court, which only 3 levels. I could also, of course, make this an Bard, whistle while I work, and give myself +2 to this score, inspiring conpetence giving me a +28.
Creating this rule would create a break in the wealth by character level system and create an influx of magical items into the world which would be even greater than high magic worlds like Golarion.
You seem to think that the erasing of one sentence, making what used to be 18th CL required now 3rd CL required, makes sense? Grats to your logic I guess............
Don't speak for me. I am not exactly "fine" with the former. I prefer the latter. However, the former is acceptable under the proper circumstances (which are certainly NOT common circumstances at all).
Those circumstances are certainly common enough among badguys who want to open gates to Hades. I mean yeah, you can try and plug the hole in-game, but that mostly leads to other silliness.
Wizban: "Wait a minute! If the evil mage is trying to open a gate to Hades, why doesn't he just craft a candle? We've been able to do that since we were kids!"
Torbash: "Because thankfully, our kingdom has run out of tallow wax."
Wizban: "Wait a minute! If the evil mage is trying to open a gate to Hades, why doesn't he just craft a candle? We've been able to do that since we were kids!"
Torbash: "Not an evoker. Can't produce flame."
Wizban: "Wait a minute! If the evil mage is trying to open a gate to Hades, why doesn't he just craft a candle? We've been able to do that since we were kids!"
Torbash: "Because thankfully, spellcraft is no longer taught at Evil Mage School."
Wizban: "Wait a minute! If the evil mage is trying to open a gate to Hades, why doesn't he just craft a candle? We've been able to do that since we were kids!"
Torbash: "Because thankfully, the evil mage doesn't have four thousand gold pieces to blow, because he lost his Tower in the mortgage crisis."
Wizban: "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 since we were kids!"
Torbash: "Who has the time? Between school, work, kids, and ravaging the countryside for damsels to rape, he probably just can't find the four days it will take to craft it."
Wizban: "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 since we were kids!"
Torbash: "Obama."
:D
I'm kidding you of course. But I'd love to see the reason the evil mage hell bent on opening a gateway to Hades can't just craft a candle in your game. Mine reason is easy, the rules won't let him until he gets more powerful.
This NPC could make a living working as an master crafter in the kings court, which only 3 levels. I could also, of course, make this an Bard, whistle while I work, and give myself +2 to this score, inspiring conpetence giving me a +28.
-You need at least 7 levels to do anything with master craftsman. You can't take the feat until level 5 because it requires 5 ranks in a skill (not a +5 modifier) That is your 5th level feat. You then can't get the item creation feat until level 7
He can just hire someone to cast the spell for him, and it will be cheaper. Or buy a scroll. Look, you're making an obviously ridiculous situation and ignoring every other limiting factor that exists.
Nope. You'd have to find a scroll, which is extremely rare and not likely to EVER get rolled on the Major Item Table. Or you'd have to find a CL17 caster, who not only would be willing to even speak with you, but would also be willing to sell you a casting of a Gate spell to Hades.
If those things are common in your game world, fine. They are not common in all game worlds, so using them as a counterexample to a rule that's supposed to apply in all game worlds is silly. The rules should be written with enough robustness to apply to all game worlds within reason.
You want another reason? That's not good enough for you? Story sensibilities. I wouldn't want to play a campaign with you if you think the only thing stopping you from being a total munchkin and breaking the game system is some wrong belief that the system works in a way that it doesn't, just to stop you from being a munchkin.
There's something that always stops you from being a munchkin in the way that you suggest: the other players.
So now we're back to this:
Wizban: "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 since we were kids!"
Torbash: "Because that would wreck the plot."
And this:
The major disjunction between your point of view, Matthias, and Nigrescence's point of view, is in how you two value world believability.
It is the system's job to prevent munchkinism, not the players job, because otherwise the characters can't act in a way that is sensible to them. If you can build a character specifically to break a system, then the system is broken.
