We clearly do view the game differently.
You see it as a constant threat for loopholes and power grabs, unfun abuses of the system, and a contest between powergamers and the DM, all pitted against each other.
I do not "see the game" that way, but I definitely rank the robustness and balance of a rule system, or of an individual rule, by how easy it is to break. That applies just as much to Pathfinder as it does to Football, Tort Law, or the Tax Code. That's not munchkinism, that's life.
In life, when dealing with codified systems, you have two options. Here they are:
1) "People are not paying taxes by using this loophole!" ... "Well then ask them nicely to stop!" ..or..
2) "People are not paying taxes by using this loophole!" ... "Well then lets fix the tax code!"
Those same two approaches apply to game play:
1) "I found a hole in the rules!" .. "Quit being a munchkin!" ..or..
2) "I found a hole in the rules!" .. "Lets fix it!"
And these are the parallel approaches to game design:
1) "I don't care if my rules have holes, the players are on an honor code to kinda play such that the game happens as we've envisioned it." ..or..
2) "I would like to write a rule system without holes."
Case 2 is always preferable to Case 1.
Now Pathfinder honestly doesn't have very many holes. I think this is a function of a good core design, by Monte and the guys who came up with d20 from the get-go, and it's also a function of quite a few revisions to plug holes. Pathfinder is essentially 3.6.5. But if someone points out a hole, then I'm the sort of person who wants to fix it, not the sort of person who wants to hang a sign that says "Hole: do not enter by honor code." If I wanted Honor Code Gaming I'd go play White Wolf V:TM. And I don't appreciate being typecast as a munchkin simply because I understand how to define and evaluate the robustness of a rule or ruleset.
|
We clearly do view the game differently.
You see it as a constant threat for loopholes and power grabs, unfun abuses of the system, and a contest between powergamers and the DM, all pitted against each other.
I do not "see the game" that way, but I definitely rank the robustness and balance of a rule system, or of an individual rule, by how easy it is to break. That applies just as much to Pathfinder as it does to Football, Tort Law, or the Tax Code. That's not munchkinism, that's life.
In life, when dealing with codified systems, you have two options. Here they are:
1) "People are not paying taxes by using this loophole!" ... "Well then ask them nicely to stop!" ..or..
2) "People are not paying taxes by using this loophole!" ... "Well then lets fix the tax code!"Those same two approaches apply to game play:
1) "I found a hole in the rules!" .. "Quit being a munchkin!" ..or..
2) "I found a hole in the rules!" .. "Lets fix it!"And these are the parallel approaches to game design:
1) "I don't care if my rules have holes, the players are on an honor code to kinda play such that the game happens as we've envisioned it." ..or..
2) "I would like to write a rule system without holes."Case 2 is always preferable to Case 1.
Now Pathfinder honestly doesn't have very many holes. I think this is a function of a good core design, by Monte and the guys who came up with d20 from the get-go, and it's also a function of quite a few revisions to plug holes. Pathfinder is essentially 3.6.5. But if someone points out a hole, then I'm the sort of person who wants to fix it, not the sort of person who wants to hang a sign that says "Hole: do not enter by honor code." If I wanted Honor Code Gaming I'd go play White Wolf V:TM. And I don't appreciate being typecast as a munchkin simply because I understand how to define and evaluate the robustness of a rule or ruleset.
And how long has the US been working on fixing the loopholes in the laws? I would rather have a playable game sometime in the next century rather than waiting for all the loopholes to be found and worked out.
Until the "perfect gaming system" comes along, I will just rely on the GM to help keep the game flowing and the game munchkin free. After all, the game and fun had therein for all players (GM included), is much more important then the system.
I'm sorry, you are correct. Change Expert to Adept and remove the Master Craftsman... and... take.... Improved initiative.lol.
There, Now you have a level 3 NPC class easily creating things that are VASTLY above their level.
Easily is the key here.
PS: How is puting max ranks in an NPCs most practiced and relevent skill, getting a trained skill bonus, getting a +3 modifier (Moderate for a PC, but high for an NPC) in there most necessary stat, Craft wondrous items (which is necessary for crafting wondrous items anyway), Masterwork Artisan tools +2,and choosing a specialty feat munchkining?
I am using a HORRIBLE class.
I am using 2 Feats (not even using Magical Aptitude for a +2 or Cooperative crafting as a 3rd level Inquisitor for ANOTHER +2).
I am using a +3 int mod instead of +5, or even +6-7 with magic items.
I am NOT using Crafter's Fortune Spell (another +5).
and at level 3 I am now able to make Robe's of the Archmagi with no problem. No Challenge... it's automatic......
..... using the above, I would be able to make anything there is to make in the wondrous item section, AT LEVEL 3... WIHTOUT BEING CHALLENGED EVEN!!!!!!!!!!!
Sorry... this makes no sense.
PSS:
I don't need to be funded by a King or Government, even though they would gladly do it to increase the powers of their army.
I can simply Double my wealth by creating items and selling them at Market Costs.
And how long has the US been working on fixing the loopholes in the laws?
U.S.? Lol, how long has mankind? Since Hammurabi. And if nobody bothered to fix any of the ones that weren't robust we'd be solving Paizo Rules Disputes like this:
If any one bring an accusation against a man, and the accused go to the river and leap into the river, if he sink in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river prove that the accused is not guilty, and he escape unhurt, then he who had brought the accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into the river shall take possession of the house that had belonged to his accuser.
Playing with the system you've got is not mutually exclusive with pointing out specific rules who aren't robust, nor is it mutually exclusive with trying to fix it.
You're specifically building this character to break a system. That right there equals being a munchkin.
Someone sits down at my game for the first time and says this:
"I would like to be a magic item crafter. Not an adventurer who dabbles in item crafting, an item crafter who happens to dabble in adventuring."
If the character they build by following the rules towards their character goal breaks the system, then that's not munchkin, it's a symptom of a broken system.
If any one bring an accusation against a man, and the accused go to the river and leap into the river, if he sink in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river prove that the accused is not guilty, and he escape unhurt, then he who had brought the accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into the river shall take possession of the house that had belonged to his accuser.
Huh. So for my next sword and sandle adventure the lawyers should have skill focus swim huh?
If any one bring an accusation against a man, and the accused go to the river and leap into the river, if he sink in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river prove that the accused is not guilty, and he escape unhurt, then he who had brought the accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into the river shall take possession of the house that had belonged to his accuser.
Huh. So for my next sword and sandle adventure the lawyers should have skill focus swim huh?
Yep!
Our campaign has Babylon in it. Not a knock off, the real place, real gods, everything. Hammurabi is a 3000 year old lich.
Pathfinder != Computer MMORPG.
If it was run by the rules alone, there would be no need for a GM.
I agree.
Conversely, if the rules make sense, then the GM doesn't have to artificially manufacture ten excuses why the badguy didn't just go ahead and craft a gate to hades candle back when he was third level, whereas in an MMO people take those incongruities for granted.
@Beej
I agree.Maybe Nigrescense just likes saying the word munchkin?
@Nigrescense
I'm following the rules, using normal feats and abilities, and breaking the system?
Thank you for proving my point.
PS: Your accusations are all .... pretty dumb. Spellcraft IS a craft skill. lol. You use it for crafting... it has craft in it's name. I'm not going against RAW.
I'm not stretching the rules by anything I've done or said.
I chose Adept because it would show that the NPC classes of the world would be churning out huge amounts of overpowered magic into the world... more than Faerun even lol.
Stop calling me a munchkin, or you're getting flagged.
Nigrescence,
Lets throw out arguing over whether a crafting tweaked character is munchkin or not. Instead, lets talk about game design, and we'll use an analogy instead of this crafting stuff, because maybe that will clarify things.
When the Paizo rules writers came up with all the new Critical feats and other things that effect DPS in the APG, do you think they tested them at all? Do you think there was, perhaps, a "playtesting phase" where they tried the rules out, and saw whether some combination of their proposed rules did indeed break the system? If they discovered such a rule or combination of rules, they would be faced with a decision. They must have said to themselves...
Either:
A) We can modify this rule or combination of rules so as to avoid people building characters that break our system, or
B) We can leave it in and tell everyone who exploits our rules they're a munchkin.
Which is the appropriate game design approach? In a robust, well built game, do you A) fix the rules in such a way that characters don't break the game, or B) accuse anyone who utilizes broken rules of being a munchkin and rely on GMs to manage the broken ruleset?
A or B?
Gallo wrote:
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.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 don't see it as a "cheap shot", but as a possible way of stopping low level crafters making very powerful items. Especially when you add in my next sentence that was omitted from your quote....
"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".
That way Mr Wizard 3 with all his being focused on Crafting Wonderous Items can be very, very good at making minor magic items but more powerful ones are largely beyond him. He can risk it but the chances of failure are high - as is the potential loss of wealth.
Whereas Mr Wizard 10 with higher int, perhaps Skill Focus and a few other bonuses may not be able to take 10 in making a CL12 item, but his proportionally higher bonuses mean the risk, while still present, is much lower.
As for there never being an auto-fail or auto-success in crafting....
True, but I'm only interested in fixing the magic item crafting rules and see the removal of auto-crit/success as one possible avenue in doing so.
I agree that under the current system wealth is the main limiter on what PCs can create. I don't really care what NPCs or anyone who does not interact with my PCs can do or whether they have access to funds beyond what a PC should roughly have based on character wealth-by-level.
That's why I personally don't mind a level 5 character making a +2 or +3 weapon. If they can afford it, make it (or at least try to). But they won't have the wealth to get other items a PC of their level could expect to have. ie they may end up with a slightly better sword than they might otherwise have, but their armour may be slightly worse, they can't yet afford that +2 Str belt that Mr Fighter-with-a-plain-old-masterwork-sword has been able to afford, and so on.
This premise is based on the DM making sure the wealth available to the PCs is roughly linked to wealth by character level (or at least applied consistently if you have a "wealthier" campaign"). If players get ahead of the curve, then the DM can tone down the loot for a while. Ultimately it doesn't matter how good a PC is at creating magic items if they don't have the cash to make what they want. NPC crafters with wealthy NPCs stumping up the cash is a different matter, but that does not directly impact on the issue of PCs using crafting to become more powerful than they should be.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
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 a candle would only open a gate long enough for a single fiend to step through, and he wants an army of devils under his control!"
3rd Level Adept stuff
First off, the king would never hire a 3rd level adept because there's no prestige in hiring a 3rd level adept. You can't show up to the royal inauguration wearing something scraped together by a rank amateur! It would be scandalous! And since the price for a robe of the archmagi is the same no matter if you get it from a 3rd level adept or a 12 level fancy pants, why wouldn't the king use the latter?
Secondly, a 3rd level adept has no way of guaranteeing the safety of the king's property prior to delivery of the item. Too easy to steal the robe (or even the payment) before the king gets his hands on the goods. Or even worse, with the 3rd level adepts poor saves, he could easily be dominated and forced to craft a cursed robe to assassinate the king!
Besides, if the end result is "wealthy king gets equipment appropriate to his level", what's the issue?
Beej, something probably more appropriate to the house rules section:
So,
Minor items would be DC 5 + CL
Medium items go up to 10 + CL
Major items are really difficult at 15 + CL
Well if I were a king, I'd cultivate a dozen cheap 3rd level crafters to make Orbs of Storms or whatever, and I wouldn't want them leveling past that and getting any ideas about career advancement, lol.
Some of you guys need to spend a little more time in the business world. :D
spoiler blah blah **
How about instead of increasing craft DCs across the board, use a scaling system based on item cost?So,
Minor items would be DC 5 + CL
Medium items go up to 10 + CL
Major items are really difficult at 15 + CL
15 is too much. I'm not trying to slay the system. I think I have an idea where the developers were coming from with it - they wanted the capability for an exceptional crafter to beat their CL, and for a suck crafter to struggle with their CL, and for a typical crafter to take 10 at their CL. That's what makes sense. The problem is that 5+ICL+5/reqbyp doesn't meet that intent at all. The RAW, according to the gurus in this thread, mean nobody ever fails, the suck crafters easily take 10 to exceed items of their CL, the typical crafters can craft anything in the book, and the exceptional crafters .. well, what's the point? Presuming the intent was to have some sort of variation in the crafting skills, the DCs have to be reworked.
So lets have ourselves a game design exercise, shall we?
Goals:
Typical crafter takes 10 to craft loot of an ICL equal to his CL
Exceptional crafter takes 10 to craft loot of an ICL greater than his CL
Suck crafter can't even manage to craft loot of an ICL equal to his CL without rolling
So start by defining each of those terms, Exceptional, Typical, Suck.
First off, you must assume that typical crafters are going to have max spellcraft, because everybody has max spellcraft if they're a crafter, period. Not having max spellcraft puts you in the "suck" bucket. Also, not having at least a 14 in your relevant ability score puts you into the "suck" bucket if you're making a crafting character. Also, not having your craft skill as a class skill puts you in the "suck" bucket. Having feats dedicated to crafting, (skill focus spellcraft for instance) or a relevant ability score above 14 puts you squarely in the "talented" bucket.
14int is +2
class skill is +3
spellcraft ranks = CL
taking 10 = 10
So if we were to say that a "typical" 10th level guy, crafting an ICL 10 item for which he met all the prereqs, could barely take 10 to craft it, then the DC to craft should be 25.
That means the rule should be DC 15+ICL, not 5+ICL. Or alternately, 10+ICL, but make ICL a requirement bypassed with a +5 check, which works out to the same breaks for someone trying to craft higher level items.
Do some test cases. 15+ICL works sooooo much better to meet their intent, or at least what I presume their intent was. Anything with a 9th level spell tied to it (CL17) is going to be a DC32 spellcraft check, easily done by a level 15 guy, but impossible for a 5th level guy. If someone's trying to not only craft a 9th level prereq item, but craft it without the spell in the prereq, the DC is 37. Still take-10-able by talented crafters, but they better be high level to try it.
Makes me wonder if DC 5+ICL wasn't a typeo, honestly, and always intended to be DC 15+ICL.
Makes me wonder if DC 5+ICL wasn't a typeo, honestly, and always intended to be DC 15+ICL.
Actually no, Sean has said crafting is supposed to be easy to achieve. In fact:
I feel like my players who are doing crafting are getting it very easy. THere is no chance for them to fail their crafting attempts at all.That is intentional--as long as they're picking items for which they meet all the prereqs, they should have no chance of failure.
I think it would be a good idea to throw some ideas around to come up with some improvements/clarifications to the magic item creation rules.
Getting terminology clarified at the start might help.
And perhaps saying Poor / Average / Exceptional might work better than using "suck" ;)
Makes me wonder if DC 5+ICL wasn't a typeo, honestly, and always intended to be DC 15+ICL.Actually no, Sean has said crafting is supposed to be easy to achieve. In fact:
I feel like my players who are doing crafting are getting it very easy. THere is no chance for them to fail their crafting attempts at all.That is intentional--as long as they're picking items for which they meet all the prereqs, they should have no chance of failure.
Ex..actly.
A properly built crafting character who meets all the prereqs and who also meets the ICL can take ten and have no chance of failure at DC=15+ICL. I displayed how above.
Where the system gets stupid is when characters start crafting stuff 10 levels over their head, because Paizo set the crafting DC wrong.
Do the math yourself if you don't believe me. Sean said "as long as they're picking items for which they have met all the prereqs there should be no chance of failure," and then wrote a system where there's no chance of failure at doing much more difficult stuff than merely crafting things you have the prereqs for.
Again, don't believe me? Check the math. Sean says the intent of the rule is to allow a typical crafter to take 10 and craft stuff at his ICL. That's exactly the intent I used above. They did the math wrong when they set the DC, so the rules don't follow their intent.
|
|
I guess you could make each CL over yours = a +5. So, if the item prereq is 2 CL over yours the crafting DC would be at a +10, 3 CL's greater would be a +15, etc... Want to create that +5 sword at level 3? Enjoy that +60 to the DC! (12 CL's off, +5 per CL) This encourages people to craft in their CL range, maybe push it a little if the cash becomes available, but really pushing it has a better and better chance for a cursed item.
To be honest, I have never been a fan of rules being left vague on purpose. With rare exceptions, my DM attempts to go by RAW as much as possible. Where he is very creative and can make rulings if something isn’t there, he prefers not to, to remain as close to RAW as possible.
But also for the fact that the rules are clearly there in front of you and nothing needs to be ad hocked in any way. I would much rather Pazio gave us more clear and concise rules. If a DM doesn’t agree with a rule, they can still change it to fit their campaign.
That being said, I don’t think Paizo had left the magic creation rules vague on purpose, I feel it was just an oversight/not being able to spend as much time on it as they’d like. I would like to think we will see clarification and more concise magic item creation rules down the line. Either through the FAQ’s, when they get more time to work on them, or maybe even through a Rules Compendium similar in 3.5 for rules clean ups.
Ex..actly.
A properly built crafting character who meets all the prereqs and who also meets the ICL can take ten and have no chance of failure at DC=15+ICL. I displayed how above.
Where the system gets stupid is when characters start crafting stuff 10 levels over their head, because Paizo set the crafting DC wrong.
Do the math yourself if you don't believe me. Sean said "as long as they're picking items for which they have met all the prereqs there should be no chance of failure," and then wrote a system where there's no chance of failure at doing much more difficult stuff than merely crafting things you have the prereqs for.
Again, don't believe me? Check the math. Sean says the intent of the rule is to allow a typical crafter to take 10 and craft stuff at his ICL. That's exactly the intent I used above. They did the math wrong when they set the DC, so the rules don't follow their intent.
Agreed.
Let's do a completely sane level 3 Wizard instead of trying to stretch my point as before.
Spellcraft =
+5 Intelligence bonus.
+3 Skill ranks
+3 Trained
+Craft Wondrous (Item Feat)
Just from these 3 staples of BEING A SUCCESSFUL WIZARD.
No Feats, No Item bonuses, No Circumstance bonuses, no Magic items, nothing else but puting 3 ranks in it.
Alows for a CL 3 caster to create things with a DC 21 with NO problems.
Thats means they can craft ANY CL 11 Item for which they are missing one prerequisite AUTOMATICALLY at Level 3.
According to what you posted Beej, they were WAAAAY off on their math... and that is with the bare bones.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
According to what you posted Beej, they were WAAAAY off on their math... and that is with the bare bones.
Right.
Now, lets dial that bare bones wizard back to an int of 18 instead of 20, and apply the same logic to that 3rd level bare bones wizard with my suggestion for a modified DC, to carry the Game Design Experiment to its conclusion.
Spellcraft =
+4 Intelligence bonus.
+3 Skill ranks
+3 Trained
+Craft Wondrous (Item Feat)
If he takes 10, he can get a 20 on his roll. If the DC to craft items is 15+ICL, then he could craft any item of ICL5 or below for which he meets all the prerequisites. Not gross at all. Not restricting at all. And he can't take 10 to craft anything he doesn't have the prerequisite on. If he tries to craft something higher than ICL5, he's got to make a roll and risk a cursed item. If he tries to craft anything for which he doesn't meet the prereq, gotta make a roll.
Now lets dial him up to 8th level bare bones, presuming 2 ability bumps in INT and no gear enhancements on his roll.
Spellcraft = 16
+5 Intelligence bonus.
+8 Skill ranks
+3 Trained
+Craft Wondrous (Item Feat)
If he takes 10, he can get a 26 on his roll. If the DC to craft items were 15+ICL, then he could craft any item of ICL 11 or below without rolling provided he meets all the prerequisites. He can also craft any item of ICL 6 or below without rolling if he's missing one prerequisite, and an ICL1 item if he's missing two prereqs.
This sounds a lot like the intent of their system, does it not? Most people in this thread who are defending the RAW as being RAI have painted a picture as if the RAI works like above, but they do not. The RAI only work as Sean intended if the DC is 15+ICL, not 5+ICL.
Sounds about right. This investigative work is pretty fun... trying to fish out the intent of the Developers (since they are silent on the matter).
Looks like it might well have been a typo... having missed a 1 (to make the dc 15 + caster level.
What seems very legit about this solution as well, is that not all caster classes would have a high int.
So, a 14 intelligence would align that juussssst right at being able to make CL 3 items without fear.
Great work Beej.
1)This makes more sense, it's a challenge to create things above your level but not overpowered.
2)It's fairly even across caster classes, with Wizards making he best crafters by a small margin.
3) At higher levels, it becomes easier for a Craft Wondrous Item specialist to decrease the time it takes to create an item (which I think increases the DC +10 according to the Craft Skills section)
Sounds like a decent fix.
Beej, I was going to stay out of this after my initial quote of SKR. Let you and Matthias agree with one another on your theory of what the RAI are for the crafting DC. However when you added that last line,
The RAI only work as Sean intended if the DC is 15+ICL, not 5+ICL.
I had to speak up.
I can only laugh at that very last line of your post. In a way, I can see yours and Mattihias argument. For a standard Wizard, yes, crafting is very easy. You won’t get any argument from me. However, I find it funny you had to add that last line to help validate your point. “Oh, for it to work as Sean intended, it must be 15+CL.”
I’m sorry, but you have NO idea what Sean had intended. I can see Sean sitting here reading this and laughing as now forum posters are telling him what his thoughts and intentions are.
All we know of Sean’s RAI in regards CL for the ‘ease’ of crafting is:
That is intentional--as long as they're picking items for which they meet all the prereqs, they should have no chance of failure.
Your 15+CL is only an educated guess what you feel is best. Right now the RAW, and RAI for that matter, is 5+CL as nothing has been said differently.
Maybe Sean (and the other developers) had thoughts of other classes besides Wizards crafting and wanted to make it pitifully easy? So those classes who need to use that +5 DC (like a Master Craftsman), could do so religiously?
I think it’s great you are proactive in homebrewing a rule that you feel needs adjusting. If you find it works better for your campaign, all the better. But please don’t try to convince us that the +5 must be a typo. Because really, we don’t know. But If I had to give my educated guess, I would say it is not, as I am sure that typo would have been fixed by now after the 4th printing.
As for what Sean’s intentions are/were on this rule, why don’t we let Sean tell us that? If he doesn’t pipe in during the thread, you can always ask him at PaizoCon or Gen Con, which I think I will do. But until then, let us not try answering for the developers on what their intentions are, ok?
Actually, Hobbun, it makes perfect sense.
"That is intentional--as long as they're picking items for which they meet all the prereqs, they should have no chance of failure. "
Right now, a 3rd level wizard who wants to craft a Boots of Levitation (CL 3rd), without meeting the prerequisites can do so without fail! Which wasn't what Sean intended as noted above.
His statement says that the only time there is a chance of failure should be if you don't meet the prereqs... which currently ISN'T the case.
DC would be 5+ 3 (CL) + 5 (for not having Levitate prereq)= 13
A wizard can take a 10 + 3 (rank in spellcraft) + 3(spellcraft is class skill) + 2 (decent INT bonus) = 18 (automatic success).
However, if we use 15 + CL.... it comes out just about perfectly in alignment with Sean's statement.
I’m sorry, but you have NO idea what Sean had intended. I can see Sean sitting here reading this and laughing as now forum posters are telling him what his thoughts and intentions are.
I can only presume that he wasn't intentionally trying to be misleading when he said this:
That is intentional--as long as they're picking items for which they meet all the prereqs, they should have no chance of failure.
I think it’s great you are proactive in homebrewing a rule that you feel needs adjusting. If you find it works better for your campaign, all the better. But please don’t try to convince us that the +5 must be a typo. Because really, we don’t know. But If I had to give my educated guess, I would say it is not, as I am sure that typo would have been fixed by now after the 4th printing.
I absolutely am not trying to convince anyone that it's a typeo. That's just one possibility. The possibilities as I see them are:
1) The intent is as SKR advertised above, the design is as I've guessed it at CL+15, and there's a typeo. ICL+5 shoulda been ICL+15, and might in fact have been 15 in the same Word Document that had the CLs removed. Sean mentioned in the thread linked a few pages back that there was a revised document that was left out of several consecutive printings by accident, with some changes, including the removal of CLs in the item descriptions. The precedent has already been set by Paizo that there are typeos in the crafting rules, maybe this is one of them.
2) The intent is as advertised in the above quote, but the design was sloppy and they didn't do the math right. They thought they were writing the rules to produce the above intent but they wrote them wrong. There's some precedent for Paizo goofing their algebra up, as evidenced by the fact that most of the staves in the APG are half price by accident.
3) The intent isn't as advertised at all. Instead of saying "That is intentional--as long as they're picking items for which they meet all the prereqs, they should have no chance of failure," SKR meant to say "that is intentional--crafting should never require a roll unless you really suck at it or you're trying to craft stuff WAY over your head." In which case RAW = RAI. Which might be true for all I know.
Interesting question about the d20 open gaming license:
Can anyone publish material for the Pathfinder ruleset? Could, for instance, an enterprising game development team unrelated to Paizo publish a third party book that fixes all this crap? Or would they have to advertise it as a "d20 Magic Item Rule Supplement" unrelated to Pathfinder?
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
You guys are only looking at the Wizard. What about classes that don't have Int as an important stat?
Example:
I am a 3rd level Druid with an Int of 12 (Depending on the build, this is high for an NPC Druid). I would like to craft a Bag of Tricks (gray).
Skill breakdown:
3 Ranks
3 for Class Skill
1 Int
+7 Total
Current Craft Rules = CL 3 + 5 = 8. I take a 10, and successfully craft my item.
Proposed Craft Rules = CL 3 + 15 = 18. I cannot take a 10. I have a 50-50 shot at crafting my item.
You guys are only looking at the Wizard. What about classes that don't have Int as an important stat?
Example:
I am a 3rd level Druid with an Int of 12 (Depending on the build, this is high for an NPC Druid). I would like to craft a Bag of Tricks (gray).Skill breakdown:
3 Ranks
3 for Class Skill
1 Int
+7 TotalCurrent Craft Rules = CL 3 + 5 = 8. I take a 10, and successfully craft my item.
Proposed Craft Rules = CL 3 + 15 = 18. I cannot take a 10. I have a 50-50 shot at crafting my item.
Perhaps for crafting purposes you should be allowed to use your primary caster stat as your Spellcraft modifier. Kind of clunky admittedly, but why should a wizard be better at magic item creation than their cleric/sorcerer/etc counterparts.
Of course its easy for wizards. But not every caster is a wizard. Not every caster has a +5 int modifier.
You guys are only looking at the Wizard. What about classes that don't have Int as an important stat?
Example:
I am a 3rd level Druid with an Int of 12 (Depending on the build, this is high for an NPC Druid). I would like to craft a Bag of Tricks (gray).Skill breakdown:
3 Ranks
3 for Class Skill
1 Int
+7 TotalCurrent Craft Rules = CL 3 + 5 = 8. I take a 10, and successfully craft my item.
Proposed Craft Rules = CL 3 + 15 = 18. I cannot take a 10. I have a 50-50 shot at crafting my item.
So you wait until level 4 (oh noez!) and take ten.
4 Ranks
3 for Class Skill
1 Int
+8 Total
Proposed Craft Rules = CL 3 + 15 = 18
DC15+ICL is a good balance, where high int characters are a little bit better, and lower int characters are a teeny weeny bit worse, without making the spellcraft roll pointless.
Perhaps for crafting purposes you should be allowed to use your primary caster stat as your Spellcraft modifier. Kind of clunky admittedly, but why should a wizard be better at magic item creation than their cleric/sorcerer/etc counterparts.
Why should Wizards be better at spellcraft than their cleric/sorcerer/etc counterparts?
A: because they tend to be a little bit smarter. /shrug
Removed some posts - please post nice. :)
Can anyone publish material for the Pathfinder ruleset? Could, for instance, an enterprising game development team unrelated to Paizo publish a third party book that fixes all this crap? Or would they have to advertise it as a "d20 Magic Item Rule Supplement" unrelated to Pathfinder?
Yes, but you need to follow certain guidelines and criteria, which you can find starting here in the Pathfinder RPG Compatibility License. Being familiar with the Open Gaming License and its hurdles is an excellent start as well. (Also, I'm fairly certain you can't advertise your product using the term d20, but I'm not 100% on that.)
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
So you wait until level 4 (oh noez!) and take ten.4 Ranks
3 for Class Skill
1 Int
+8 TotalProposed Craft Rules = CL 3 + 15 = 18
DC15+ICL is a good balance, where high int characters are a little bit better, and lower int characters are a teeny weeny bit worse, without making the spellcraft roll pointless.
Which misses my point.
If this intent is that "as long as they're picking items for which they meet all the prereqs, they should have no chance of failure", then CL +15 fails to hit that criteria for a large portion of the crafters in the game (i.e., everyone but the Wizard and the Witch).
CL +5 does accomplish that goal. What you and Matthias seem to take issue with is that CL + 5 fails to accomplish the inverse, to wit "picking items for which you do NOT meet all the prerequisites should always involve a chance of failure". I don't think that was the intent of the system, nor do I think it should be.
Crafting got a boost in Pathfinder. If you want to house rule it to make it harder, or less valuable, I would recommend you at least make it no more difficult than 3.5 crafting. In 3.5, a 3rd level Druid could craft a Bag of Tricks (gray) with no chance of failure.
Edit: Besides, what if he has an Int of 10 (quite reasonable for a Druid). He has to wait until level 5 to hurl tiny animals at his enemies? :D
So you wait until level 4 (oh noez!) and take ten.4 Ranks
3 for Class Skill
1 Int
+8 TotalProposed Craft Rules = CL 3 + 15 = 18
DC15+ICL is a good balance, where high int characters are a little bit better, and lower int characters are a teeny weeny bit worse, without making the spellcraft roll pointless.
Which misses my point.
If this intent is that "as long as they're picking items for which they meet all the prereqs, they should have no chance of failure", then CL +15 fails to hit that criteria for a large portion of the crafters in the game (i.e., everyone but the Wizard and the Witch).
CL +5 does accomplish that goal. What you and Matthias seem to take issue with is that CL + 5 fails to accomplish the inverse, to wit "picking items for which you do NOT meet all the prerequisites should always involve a chance of failure". I don't think that was the intent of the system, nor do I think it should be.
I don't think he meant that anybody who uses intelligence as a dump stat should still be able to take 10 and craft their ICL. That said, I do see your position.
The obvious compromise between my position and your complaint, it seems, is to do 10+ICL for the DC, and +10 per missing prereq. (instead of +15 / +5) Works out the same for people trying to craft over their head, and easier for people trying to craft at their level.
Edit: Besides, what if he has an Int of 10 (quite reasonable for a Druid). He has to wait until level 5 to hurl tiny animals at his enemies? :D
Lol, let me assure you, low level druids have no game obstructions at all from hurling tiny animals at their enemies. It's how they survive to level 5 when they start being able to do things that don't suck. Hehe.
Did kind of irk me when they yanked Hippogriff from the SNA2 list though. I used the heck out of that summon.
Removed some posts - please post nice. :)
Can anyone publish material for the Pathfinder ruleset? Could, for instance, an enterprising game development team unrelated to Paizo publish a third party book that fixes all this crap? Or would they have to advertise it as a "d20 Magic Item Rule Supplement" unrelated to Pathfinder?Yes, but you need to follow certain guidelines and criteria, which you can find starting here in the Pathfinder RPG Compatibility License. Being familiar with the Open Gaming License and its hurdles is an excellent start as well. (Also, I'm fairly certain you can't advertise your product using the term d20, but I'm not 100% on that.)
Do magic items in the core rules count as "Product Identity" or "Open Game Content" in the OGL?
Perhaps for crafting purposes you should be allowed to use your primary caster stat as your Spellcraft modifier. Kind of clunky admittedly, but why should a wizard be better at magic item creation than their cleric/sorcerer/etc counterparts.Why should Wizards be better at spellcraft than their cleric/sorcerer/etc counterparts?
A: because they tend to be a little bit smarter. /shrug
Given that a spellcaster creating a magic item is imbuing the item with their magic power to create the item, why should casters who use CHA be worse at doing it than a caster who happens to be more intelligent. Should intelligence be the determining factor or your actual mastery of your own magic powers?
A Sorcerer with 20 CHA and 10 INT is apparently less able to craft a magic item than a Wizard with 20 INT and 10 CHA. Yet in terms of lobbing spells around, outside of crafting, they are equal.
My musing above was merely a suggestion as to a way of balancing the fact that non-INT casters tend to be behind INT casters when it comes to creating magic items.
The issue of whether a high WIS, low INT cleric is less able to understand the mysterious esoterica of his own spells, than a high INT wizard - essentially what Spellcraft represents - is a whole other topic that could be discussed.
Given that a spellcaster creating a magic item is imbuing the item with their magic power to create the item, why should casters who use CHA be worse at doing it than a caster who happens to be more intelligent. Should intelligence be the determining factor or your actual mastery of your own magic powers?
Given that a spellcaster counterspelling an opponent's spell is using their magic power counter it, why should casters who use CHA be worse at doing it than a caster who happens to be more intelligent?
Your argument is either an indictment on making INT the skill basis for spellcraft, or an indictment on Paizo's choice to make item crafting spellcraft based. My version and Paizo's version both give the same value to INT, because we give the same value to Spellcraft.
beej, I think what they were getting at is because the other classes (besides Wizard) are going to have a lower Int and the low +5 is Paizo's way to compensate for that.
In the end, I really feel the balancing factor is the money amount needed to craft the items, not how hard it is to make the roll. It's expensive to make magic items, and any good DM is going to hand out a good balance of wealth, which will limit any magic item factory.
If the DM doesn't make sure wealth is appropriate to level and hands out much more than he/she should, then the whole campaign will be unbalanced than just creating magic items. Believe me, I've played under one of those kinds of DMs, and where it's fun at first getting all these cool toys in treasure hoards (that are well above your level) it gets boring really fast.
Fortunately our current DM is good about limiting our treasure where it means something when we get a nice item.
So I've read this whole thread, start to finish, and the linked thread with Sean's posts.
As someone who has only been playing Pathfinder for a couple months and not someone who has prior DND3/3.5 experience, I am officially more confused now than I was before reading any of this.
To determine if I'm understanding this "correctly" (and based on the sheer volume of conflicting opinions here I'm using the term correctly *very* loosely), I'm just going to throw out some examples.
Based on this text, I'm assuming that ICL is based on 2+{Highest spell level on the item}.
However, if you're just making a type I necklace (max 5d6 fireball), there's no reason you couldn't just set the item's CL to 5th because it doesn't need to be more than that.
Let's assume that all items are being attempted by a LVL5 Cleric with an Int Mod of 3, 5 ranks in Spellcraft, and Skill Focus: Spellcraft (total spellcraft bonus = 14). Said cleric has the feats for Craft Wondrous Items and Craft Magic Arms and Armor. A lvl5 Cleric can cast 3rd level spells.
To prevent these examples from being walls of text, I've put them into spoiler tags.
EXAMPLE A
Wondrous Item - Headband of Alluring Charisma, CL 8th
Construction Req's: Craft Wondrous Item, eagle's splendor (lvl 2 spell).
If the CL of the item doesn't actually determine the DC on the craft, then I can only assume that the DC to craft this item is:
2 (baseline) + 2 (Spell lvl) + 5 (baseline) = 9
Since the level of the bonus (+2/+4/+6) doesn't seem to factor in to the DC of the item in regards to Wondrous items, this should technically mean that the example cleric can craft this without even trying. It's auto-success regardless of the bonus granted, and the only limiting factor is the cost in gold.
As far as I can tell, you cannot create an item to have an ICL higher than your own, so the headband crafted by the cleric would have an ICL of 5, while a headband that you buy from Joe Shmoe NPC will have an ICL of 8. I think the CL's are specified so that you have some basis of knowing how resistant the item is to Dispel Magic. Sure, I can make a headband at level5 and give it an ICL of 5, but it'll be easier to destroy by dispelling than one purchased from an NPC (or one crafted by a higher level caster).
EXAMPLE B
Wondrous Item - Manual of Bodily Health, CL 9th
Construction Req's: Craft Wondrous Item, wish or miracle (lvl 9 spell)
2 + 9 + 5 + 5 = 21
DC gets an extra +5 for the cleric not being able to cast the miracle spell yet. I would think that you would still need someone present who can cast it to assist with the crafting or have the spell on a scroll. If the cleric was somehow able to buy a scroll of miracle (is that even possible?), he could either Take10 and still successfully craft this item, or attempt a roll and succeed with a 7 or higher.
EXAMPLE C
Magic Armor - Lion's Shield, CL 10th
Construction Req's: Craft Magic Arms and Armor, summon nature's ally IV (lvl 4 spell)
Based on the text here , the enhancement bonus of +2 would equate to a required CL of 6, and the Summon spell would equate to a CL of 4. 4 > 6, so you need a CL6 to craft this item. The example cleric would have to wait a level to make this item.
But then what determines the item DC once he's lvl 6? Is it still ICL+2+5? (6 + 2 + 5 = 13)
So you tell me... am I properly understanding these crafting rules?
No, you are not. But that’s ok, because many are confused about the crafting rules as well. Before we go over your examples, let’s correct one thing, there isn’t an additional +2 as part of the formula. The DC is 5 + the minimum level of the caster where he is capable of casting the highest level spell required for the item.
So in the Necklace of Fireballs example, the reason they were getting a 5 ICL is because the minimum level you can cast Fireball (required spell for crafting the item) is a 5th level caster. So the formula would be 5+5 (ICL) = 10.
For the Headband of Alluring Charisma, as Eagle’s Splendor is a 2nd level spell, they need to be at least a 3rd level caster to be able to cast the spell, therefore the ICL is 3. Like in the Necklace of Fireballs example, the formula is 5+3 (ICL) = 8. Starting to get the idea now?
It would be nice to be able to craft the Manual of Bodily Health at a CL 9. :) However, again, the ICL is determined by the lowest level you could cast the spell(s) required for the item. So in this case, Wish or Miracle, would be 17th level. Therefore, an ICL of 17 Once again, the formula 5+17 (ICL) = 22.
As for the magic armor, you are correct you need to be 3 x the enhancement bonus of the armor. In this case, a 6th level caster and therefore the ICL would be 6 as well. So let’s plug that number again for the formula. 5+6=11.
However, the big discussion bantering back and forth is what is truly required and what can be bypassed with the additional +5 DC. Many say that the only thing you can’t bypass is the creation feat itself, and everything else is fair game. Where others say you can’t by pass the *3 multiplier for armor/weapons or if the spell would be above your CL (like your Cleric trying to make the Manual).
I come from the second category. I feel where you can use a +5 to bypass spells, it can only be with spells you would be able to cast at your CL, not above.
And yes, you are right that it is easy to craft magic items. As you said, the deciding factor is money. Which if the GM is a good one, you will not be able to craft items well above your level because you just won’t have the funds.
I hope that didn’t confuse you even more!
No, you are not. But that’s ok, because many are confused about the crafting rules as well. Before we go over your examples, let’s correct one thing, there isn’t an additional +2 as part of the formula. The DC is 5 + the minimum level of the caster where he is capable of casting the highest level spell required for the item.
So in the Necklace of Fireballs example, the reason they were getting a 5 ICL is because the minimum level you can cast Fireball (required spell for crafting the item) is a 5th level caster. So the formula would be 5+5 (ICL) = 10.
For the Headband of Alluring Charisma, as Eagle’s Splendor is a 2nd level spell, they need to be at least a 3rd level caster to be able to cast the spell, therefore the ICL is 3. Like in the Necklace of Fireballs example, the formula is 5+3 (ICL) = 8. Starting to get the idea now?
It would be nice to be able to craft the Manual of Bodily Health at a CL 9. :) However, again, the ICL is determined by the lowest level you could cast the spell(s) required for the item. So in this case, Wish or Miracle, would be 17th level. Therefore, an ICL of 17 Once again, the formula 5+17 (ICL) = 22.
As for the magic armor, you are correct you need to be 3 x the enhancement bonus of the armor. In this case, a 6th level caster and therefore the ICL would be 6 as well. So let’s plug that number again for the formula. 5+6=11.
However, the big discussion bantering back and forth is what is truly required and what can be bypassed with the additional +5 DC. Many say that the only thing you can’t bypass is the creation feat itself, and everything else is fair game. Where others say you can’t by pass the *3 multiplier for armor/weapons or if the spell would be above your CL (like your Cleric trying to make the Manual).
I come from the second category. I feel where you can use a +5 to bypass spells, it can only be with spells you would be able to cast at your CL, not above.
And yes, you are right that it is easy to craft magic items. As you said, the...
So in example A, Eagle's Splendor is a lvl 2 spell which becomes available to a Cleric at lvl 3. So the DC is 3+5=8.
Example B, Miracle is a lvl 9 spell which becomes available at lvl 17. So the DC would be 17+5=22.
I think I get this now. Was I at least correct in my theory as to what the ICL of the item actually does? (resist dispel magic)
~~~
The following is my opinion, not how the rules actually exist (afaik).
As far as the discussion going back and forth on when to add the +5... I would think that it makes sense to add +5 if you don't meet a requirement like "be an elf", and it also makes sense to add a +5 if you don't know the spell.
However, you shouldn't be able to complete the item if you don't have someone present who can assist by casting the spell, or by having the spell on a scroll (in the case of my Example B, that would require a Caster Level Check with a DC=scroll's ICL + 1, as per the rules on scrolls). Failing the Caster Level check should cause the item to be cursed instead of the normal scroll failure options.
(In Example B, that cleric would have to roll a 13 to pass the check. scroll's ICL=17. CL check is 1d20+CL)
Regarding the adding +5 for bonuses above your CL... As much as I'd like to say that I agree with giving that option, the rules seem rather clear that having the proper CL is mandatory, not a requirement which you can bypass.
@AerynTahlro
Sort answer, no you don't. In fact you have confused some wrong assumptions and some of the house rules listed here (that's why i said that house rules don't belong here).
Whatever i say that something is a general rule i mean that there might be exceptions.
1) You can always take 10 unless someone is threating you during the entire proccess.
2) Where did you get the 2 base? The general rule is that an item's ICL is at least equal to the CL needed to cast the higher level spell of the requirements, there are exceptions to this rule.
3) On example A, the DC for anyone would be 5(base)+8(ICL)(+5 if you don't have the spell). No RAW (as a general rule) you can set the ICL as high as you want, your CCL doesn't have anything to do with it, but keep in mind that the crafting DC goes up because as you can see the ICL is factored in the crafting DC.
4) On example B, the crafting DC would be 5(base)+17(minimum ICL)(+5 if you don't have the miracle). Now, NO you don't have to find a scroll of miracle or another spellcaster with miracle in order to create it, taht's why you take +5 to the DC for not having the spell.
5) On example C, now you are getting into weapons and armor and you are trying to reproduce a specific shield (things won't be pretty) here we go: Weapons, armor and shields have a special rule you can't make them unless you have CCL equal to the enchantement bonus x3 OR the CL listed in the special ability (whichever of the two is highest). Now do you see why i said that things aren't pretty? The lion's shield is a +2 shield (which means that you can't create unless your CCL is at least 6) but also has a special ability that we don't have a listed CL for (giving attacks to your shield), so we can't know if this ability has a higher CL than 6. My guess is that the extra ability is CL 10.
I am ready for your questions.
And please guys in order to answer to AerynTahlro let's stay to the RAW (since he asked about the rules) and please let's not drag ourselves into stupid arguements about the RAW that have already been covered in this thread.
@Leo1925: Hobbun corrected my error about the +2 on the DC. I had mistakenly thought that the DC was calculated using the spell level, not the CL needed to cast the spell. That correction answers your responses of 2/3/4.
In regards to the Lion's Shield, I assumed that the bite attack that was added in the enchant was from the summon nature's ally spell, augmenting the shield to have a bite attack similar to that of a normally summoned creature. The spell level on that would be 4, but you have to be level 7 to cast the spell. That said... perhaps the craft DC on the shield is: 7+5=12, requires lvl6 to craft.
However, you shouldn't be able to complete the item if you don't have someone present who can assist by casting the spell, or by having the spell on a scroll
This is a house rule (take the +5 for not having the spell yourself but still have to find some other means to provide the spell) used by some people in this forum, but keep in mind that (as you have said) this isn't the rules and that it makes crafting feats nearly useless to spontaneous casters.
Regarding the adding +5 for bonuses above your CL... As much as I'd like to say that I agree with giving that option, the rules seem rather clear that having the proper CL is mandatory, not a requirement which you can bypass.
I don't understand what you are talking about here.
@Leo1925: Hobbun corrected my error about the +2 on the DC. I had mistakenly thought that the DC was calculated using the spell level, not the CL needed to cast the spell. That correction answers your responses of 2/3/4.
In regards to the Lion's Shield, I assumed that the bite attack that was added in the enchant was from the summon nature's ally spell, augmenting the shield to have a bite attack similar to that of a normally summoned creature. The spell level on that would be 4, but you have to be level 7 to cast the spell. That said... perhaps the craft DC on the shield is: 7+5=12, requires lvl6 to craft.
Yes i saw that but at the time he posted i was writing my own post.
The thing when it comes to arms and armor the things are a little weird, about the lion's shield your and my guess is as good as any.