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)
Well, unfortunately the rules are not clear on that, therefore the debate. My opinion, “not being an elf/dwarf/etc.” shouldn’t be able to be bypassed. You just can’t make the item.
Now, I do agree if someone helping you of that race you require would work. But I wouldn’t give an extra +5 DC, I would just require they have the Cooperative Crafting feat and the appropriate item creation feat. Which I believe is needed anyways with Cooperative Crafting.
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.
Well, it's not really clear, though. It never really says that you 'need' to be at that caster level to cast the required spell. Although it really makes sense that you should. So it's more of what you and I feel is necessary, not RAW.
What the clear consensus is magic item creation is not clear and really needs to be houseruled if you want clear and concise rules in your campaign. At least until we get some official answers from Paizo to clear up the questions (if it ever happens).
Well, unfortunately the rules are not clear on that, therefore the debate. My opinion, “not being an elf/dwarf/etc.” shouldn’t be able to be bypassed. You just can’t make the item.
No it's pretty clear that you can, the FAQ entry about the Pearls of power can confirm that (the part that says that you take +5 in order to create pearls of power that return higher level spells that you can cast).
Now, I do agree if someone helping you of that race you require would work. But I wouldn’t give an extra +5 DC, I would just require they have the Cooperative Crafting feat and the appropriate item creation feat. Which I believe is needed anyways with Cooperative Crafting.
If you have someone to provide the requirement you don't have, you don't take the +5 to the DC (because you are bringing the requirement), and no they don't have to posses the cooperative crafting feat, this feat's purpose is another one.
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.
Well, it's not really clear, though. It never really says that you 'need' to be at that caster level to cast the required spell. Although it really makes sense that you should. So it's more of what you and I feel is necessary, not RAW.
Can someone tell me if you are talking about a weapon or a wondrous item?
What the clear consensus is magic item creation is a mess and really needs to be houseruled if you want clear and concise rules in your campaign. At least until we get some official answers from Paizo to clear up the questions (if it ever happens).
Not really a mess, it's just that they are a little scattered, after reading the entire magic item creation section of the core #$$@# times, participate in a flame thread like this one, read the FAQ and hope that you get them right this time.
@Leo1925 and Hobbin:
Thank you for correcting my misconceptions on this topic. I think I actually understand the rules as-written now (as well as one can understand something that isn't fully logical...). I'm glad that there are community members around to answer questions from people like me, even if Paizo isn't around to fully clarify it.
If you have someone to provide the requirement you don't have, you don't take the +5 to the DC (because you are bringing the requirement), and no they don't have to posses the cooperative crafting feat, this feat's purpose is another one.
Really? I guess I didn't have all the rules clarified then... That works for me!
Can someone tell me if you are talking about a weapon or a wondrous item?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 was talking about a regular magic weapon, not a wondrous item. Specifically, I was referencing the rule that you must have a {CL=>3*Enhancement bonus} in order to make the item. There was debate earlier in the thread about being able to add 5 to the DC to bypass that requirement. I see that rule as a mandatory thing (just like having the feat), so I don't think it should be bypassed by adding 5.
No it's pretty clear that you can, the FAQ entry about the Pearls of power can confirm that (the part that says that you take +5 in order to create pearls of power that return higher level spells that you can cast).
The Pearl or Power FAQ deals with taking a +5 DC to cast a higher level spell. I was making reference to not being the correct race. I have not seen anything, FAQ or otherwise, that makes it clear you can take a +5 if you are not the correct race. Therefore, the comment of the rules 'not being clear'. If I have missed it, please point it out to me.
If you have someone to provide the requirement you don't have, you don't take the +5 to the DC (because you are bringing the requirement), and no they don't have to posses the cooperative crafting feat, this feat's purpose is another one.
What part of "I would require" did you miss? What I gave was my opinion, not RAW. I had indicated before I don't agree with the capability of being able to take a +5 to craft an item with a higher level spell than you can cast. Although since Sean had made it official in the FAQ saying that is allowable, what I probably would do is require a +5 for each CL you are short of the needed spell. Again though, that last part is not RAW, but my own rule.
Not really a mess, it's just that they are a little scattered
I had actually gone in and edited 'mess' out before you posted. I agree, it's not a mess, but it is definitely unclear and needs improvising and rulings by GMs.
after reading the entire magic item creation section of the core #$$@# times, participate in a flame thread like this one, read the FAQ and hope that you get them right this time.
Not sure here if you are speaking to me or making a general comment. But if you are talking to me, although I am no expert, I have a decent grasp of the creation rules, however scattered they may be.
Oh come on, guys, it's a mess. There's typeos, math errors, previous outdated versions that got accidentally published when they shouldn't have been, etc. That qualifies as a "mess." The rest of the rules, near as I can tell, are great. They've done a bang up job on the system itself.
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.
Yep, that's exactly how the rule-as-written works.
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.
That is also, as I understand it, how the rule-as-written works.
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)
As I understand it, that is *not* how the rule-as-written works, although it seems like a pretty good house rule to me. Back in 3.5 if you needed a spell prereq you didn't have, you could get a friend to do it for you, or cast it off a scroll, but there was none of this "spellcraft check" stuff. Also, as the rule as written works, you can take ten on basically any roll within reason, so the risk of failure is realistically nonexistent.
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.
The question in the beginning of this thread was whether or not the minimum caster level "special requirement" of x3 the weapon bonus could also be bypassed at a +5DC, and I believe the answer per the core rules is "yes." As I mentioned above, it's certainly no more overpowered than bypassing the "wish spell" requirement on luck blade, or bypassing the "storm of vengeance" requirement on orb of storms. It seems like Paizo either made a universal error that applies to not only the bonuses but other similar prereqs, or Paizo intended these sorts of items to be crafted at low levels across the board. That may be a subject of debate, but the rule as written appears like a 5th level dude could pretty easily craft a +5 sword if he has the cash and is built right. You bypass the "requirement" just like you'd bypass any other "requirement," with a +5 check.
And keep in mind, a +5 weapon is a lot less gross than a lot of other stuff you can make for the same price by bypassing prereqs and taking ten. As I mentioned above, for the cost of a +5 weapon you could just as easily craft a +2 luck blade with one wish and wish yourself into the form of a Stone Giant via Polymorph-Any-Object. That's cooler than a +5 weapon. If the latter is allowable, I don't see why the former wouldn't be.
The Pearl or Power FAQ deals with taking a +5 DC to cast a higher level spell. I was making reference to not being the correct race. I have not seen anything, FAQ or otherwise, that makes it clear you can take a +5 if you are not the correct race. Therefore, the comment of the rules 'not being clear'. If I have missed it, please point it out to me.
Sorry my bad, although i see nowhere why the rules are unclear about the race thing, it's a requirement you can bypass it. (i know it doesn't make perfect sense but still).
What part of "I would require" did you miss? What I gave was my opinion, not RAW. I had indicated before I don't agree with the capability of being able to take a +5 to craft an item with a higher level spell than you can cast. Although after reading the Pearl of Power FAQ again and Sean saying that is allowable, what I probably would do is require a +5 for each CL you are short of the needed spell.
I am sorry again, i thought you were talking about the RAW and not your house rule.
Not sure here if you are speaking to me or making a general comment. But if you are talking to me, although I am no expert, I have a good grasp of the creation rules, however scattered they may be.
General comment.
@Leo
Sorry, didn’t mean to sound snappish. You are correct though, we should get back to quoting RAW than giving what we ‘feel’ should be the case.
To be honest though, the rules are just so vague in several areas about creation and quoting the RAW will not help.
A true solution is not going to happen until a dev steps in and start to make some clarifications. And I don’t see that happening in this thread. I think the best we can do is corner them at one of the conventions and ask. :)
@Leo
Sorry, didn’t mean to sound snappish. You are correct though, we should get back to quoting RAW than giving what we ‘feel’ should be the case.
I guess that was my fault for giving my opinion on the debate after asking for the clarification on rules... my apologies.
So to reiterate...according to the official rules:
Wondrous Items - DC=5+(caster level required to cast the highest lvl spell needed to make the item). Not knowing a spell requirement just adds 5 to the DC, it does not also require that you have someone there who can cast the spell or have a scroll. Any other requirements that you can't meet can also be replaced by adding 5 to the DC (example: Requires that you be a dwarf).
Magic Arms/Armor - DC=5+[(enhancement bonus * 3) OR (caster level required to cast any spell associated with the item), whichever is higher]. Same rules apply for adding +5 for missed requirements, but the difference is, you MUST have a CL=>(enhancement bonus * 3) to craft the item, regardless of the DC.
Magic Arms/Armor - DC=5+[(enhancement bonus * 3) OR (caster level required to cast any spell associated with the item), whichever is higher]. Same rules apply for adding +5 for missed requirements, but the difference is, you MUST have a CL=>(enhancement bonus * 3) to craft the item, regardless of the DC.
And now the thread comes full circle.
Where does it actually say the bolded bit? It says that's a "special requirement" but it never says you can't bypass it like any other requirement, best as I've seen.
Guys? Why can a 3rd level dude craft an Orb of Storms and not a +2 longsword?
@Leo
A true solution is not going to happen until a dev steps in and start to make some clarifications. And I don’t see that happening in this thread. I think the best we can do is corner them at one of the conventions and ask. :)
Since i doubt that they are going to have a convention in Greece, i leave this task to all of you.
Magic Arms/Armor - DC=5+[(enhancement bonus * 3) OR (caster level required to cast any spell associated with the item), whichever is higher]. Same rules apply for adding +5 for missed requirements, but the difference is, you MUST have a CL=>(enhancement bonus * 3) to craft the item, regardless of the DC.
Where I do feel you’re your caster level should be 3 times the level of the enhancement bonus, this last one can be argued (and has been).
Magic Arms/Armor - DC=5+[(enhancement bonus * 3) OR (caster level required to cast any spell associated with the item), whichever is higher]. Same rules apply for adding +5 for missed requirements, but the difference is, you MUST have a CL=>(enhancement bonus * 3) to craft the item, regardless of the DC.And now the thread comes full circle.
Where does it actually say the bolded bit? It says that's a "special requirement" but it never says you can't bypass it like any other requirement, best as I've seen.
Guys? Why can a 3rd level dude craft an Orb of Storms and not a +2 longsword?
Magic Item Creation rules...
Setting the Caster Level
From Magic Item Descriptions (Caster Level): For potions, scrolls, and wands, the creator can set the caster level of an item at any number high enough to cast the stored spell but not higher than her own caster level. For other magic items, the caster level is determined by the item itself. In this case, the creator's caster level must be as high as the item's caster level (and prerequisites may effectively put a higher minimum on the creator's level).From Creating Magic Armor: Creating magic armor has a special prerequisite: The creator's caster level must be at least three times the enhancement bonus of the armor. If an item has both an enhancement bonus and a special ability, the higher of the two caster level requirements must be met. Magic armor or a magic shield must have at least a +1 enhancement bonus to have any armor or shield special abilities.
Creating a magic weapon has a special prerequisite: The creator's caster level must be at least three times the enhancement bonus of the weapon. If an item has both an enhancement bonus and a special ability, the higher of the two caster level requirements must be met. A magic weapon must have at least a +1 enhancement bonus to have any melee or ranged special weapon abilities.
I read that to mean that, on top of needing the feat, you have a special requirement that you cannot circumvent.
On a side-note...where is the official text that states how you calculate an item's ICL?
What I'm seeing here indicates that the caster level needed to cast the spell for the item has nothing to do with the CL listed of the item (contrary to what's been said in this thread).
For other magic items, the caster level is determined by the item itself.
So far, the only place where the item can "define its caster level" is in the item descriptions.
Edit:
There's also a discrepency in the specified DC...can't believe I didn't see this before...
Feat description:
Successfully creating a magic item requires a Spellcraft check with a DC equal to 10 + the item's caster level
Magic Item Creation:
The DC to create a magic item is 5 + the caster level for the item
|
As far as crafting and taking 10 is concerned.
If the caster personally without any assistance meets all the prerequisites, than I'd allow taking 10 on the check. Seeking other help, or trying to bypass a req which makes the task more difficult makes it a stress test so in that case taking 10 is not allowed. Under no circumstances is taking 20 allowed.
...
Setting the Caster Level
From Magic Item Descriptions (Caster Level): For potions, scrolls, and wands, the creator can set the caster level of an item at any number high enough to cast the stored spell but not higher than her own caster level. For other magic items, the caster level is determined by the item itself. In this case, the creator's caster level must be as high as the item's caster level (and prerequisites may effectively put a higher minimum on the creator's level).From Creating Magic Armor: Creating magic armor has a special prerequisite: The creator's caster level must be at least three times the enhancement bonus of the armor. If an item has both an enhancement bonus and a special ability, the higher of the two caster level requirements must be met. Magic armor or a magic shield must have at least a +1 enhancement bonus to have any armor or shield special abilities.
Creating a magic weapon has a special prerequisite: The creator's caster level must be at least three times the enhancement bonus of the weapon. If an item has both an enhancement bonus and a special ability, the higher of the two caster level requirements must be met. A magic weapon must have at least a +1 enhancement bonus to have any melee or
Dejavu all over again, but...
...those bolded bits just say it's a "prerequisite," not that it can't be bypassed in the way other prerequisites can be bypassed.
Here's the part about bypassing prerequisites:
The DC to create a magic item increases by +5 for each prerequisite the caster does not meet. The only exception to this is the requisite item creation feat, which is mandatory. In addition, you cannot create spell-trigger and spell-completion magic items without meeting their spell prerequisites.
They state explicitly and with very clear diction that yes, there are indeed exceptions that cannot be bypassed, and then they list them out specifically, and item-bonus-x3 is not listed. Unless there's yet more FAQ material I'm unaware of (which may be the case) or more discussions from SKR on the forums I'm not aware of (which may be the case) then the rules seem very clear that any prerequisite may be bypassed except for the feat and certain spell prereqs for things like staves and wands.
Additionally, as we've already shown, ducking the prereq to make a +5 item isn't any grosser than ducking the prereq to make a lot of the CL17 wondrous items, so there's no real need to interpret it another way. If you're going to let folks duck the prereqs on Iron Flask, relying on lack of wealth to control item inflation, then let them duck it on +5 Swords too. What's the difference?
As far as crafting and taking 10 is concerned.
If the caster personally without any assistance meets all the prerequisites, than I'd allow taking 10 on the check. Seeking other help, or trying to bypass a req which makes the task more difficult makes it a stress test so in that case taking 10 is not allowed. Under no circumstances is taking 20 allowed.
That's a pretty harsh house rule. Have you tried it in your games? If you did can you share the results with the rest of us?
They state explicitly and with very clear diction that yes, there are indeed exceptions that cannot be bypassed, and then they list them out specifically, and item-bonus-x3 is not listed....
Fair enough...
But what about finding the ICL to use when crafting?
As far as crafting and taking 10 is concerned.
If the caster personally without any assistance meets all the prerequisites, than I'd allow taking 10 on the check. Seeking other help, or trying to bypass a req which makes the task more difficult makes it a stress test so in that case taking 10 is not allowed. Under no circumstances is taking 20 allowed.
That's a nice house rule too, but to be clear, it's not now the rules-as-written work.
Edit:
There's also a discrepency in the specified DC...can't believe I didn't see this before...
Feat description:
Successfully creating a magic item requires a Spellcraft check with a DC equal to 10 + the item's caster levelMagic Item Creation:
The DC to create a magic item is 5 + the caster level for the item
ORLY?
Well I like 10 better than 5. It certainly lends more credence to my typeo theory, at the minimum.
Dejavu all over again, but......those bolded bits just say it's a "prerequisite," not that it can't be bypassed in the way other prerequisites can be bypassed.
Here's the part about bypassing prerequisites:
The DC to create a magic item increases by +5 for each prerequisite the caster does not meet. The only exception to this is the requisite item creation feat, which is mandatory. In addition, you cannot create spell-trigger and spell-completion magic items without meeting their spell prerequisites.
Definitely full-circle, for what, the third time in just this one thread. But here's more fuel for the fire, and a more full quote of the quote you posted supporting bypassing the Arms/Armor special prerequisite:
Note that all items have prerequisites in their descriptions. These prerequisites must be met for the item to be created. Most of the time, they take the form of spells that must be known by the item's creator (although access through another magic item or spellcaster is allowed). The DC to create a magic item increases by +5 for each prerequisite the caster does not meet. The only exception to this is the requisite item creation feat, which is mandatory. In addition, you cannot create spell-trigger and spell-completion magic items without meeting their spell prerequisites.
The 3*Caster level requirement is not in the item's description, leading some, myself included, to believe that they cannot be bypassed.
Edit:
There's also a discrepency in the specified DC...can't believe I didn't see this before...
Feat description:
Successfully creating a magic item requires a Spellcraft check with a DC equal to 10 + the item's caster levelMagic Item Creation:
The DC to create a magic item is 5 + the caster level for the item
Oh, now that's interesting. Can anyone confirm this is also the case in the most recent printing of the Core Rulebook? (For the 10+ICL) I can't look right now, I am at work.
Or, has the Core Rulebook always had this discrepancy as well?
Edit: I found the current info from Jason Buhlmahn on this:
Q: In Chapter 4: Feats (pg. 112), the DC to craft a magic item is 10 + the item's caster level. In Chapter 15: Magic Items (pg. 548), the DC is listed as 5 + the item's caster level. Which is correct?
A: (Jason Bulmahn) I believe the Magic Items chapter is correct and the DC should be 5 + caster level, but I am still looking into the issue. Either way, this will be corrected.
As far as I know, Jason has not gotten back in regards to this. Or has this been corrected in the most recent printing?
Edit: I found the errata from Jason Buhlmahn on this:
Q: In Chapter 4: Feats (pg. 112), the DC to craft a magic item is 10 + the item's caster level. In Chapter 15: Magic Items (pg. 548), the DC is listed as 5 + the item's caster level. Which is correct?
A: (Jason Bulmahn) I believe the Magic Items chapter is correct and the DC should be 5 + caster level, but I am still looking into the issue. Either way, this will be corrected.
Is that errata listed online somewhere or is it in a pdf? Basically, how can I reference that information to show my DM?
If you look at the same line that indicates it takes a DC 10 + caster's level, you will see a small hyperlinked word "errata?". Click that and it will take you to a long page of official and unoffical errata.
The one I quoted was towards the bottom of the page under "Magic Item Crafting" where you will Jason's response.
If you look at the same line that indicates it takes a DC 10 + caster's level, you will see a small hyperlinked word "errata?". Click that and it will take you to a long page of official and unoffical errata.
The one I quoted was towards the bottom of the page under "Magic Item Creation" where you will Jason's response.
Thanks, I'll try that link again. I was having trouble loading it for some reason... every now and then the d20 website just "donuts" and doesn't load certain pages.
Thanks, I'll try that link again. I was having trouble loading it for some reason... every now and then the d20 website just "donuts" and doesn't load certain pages.If you look at the same line that indicates it takes a DC 10 + caster's level, you will see a small hyperlinked word "errata?". Click that and it will take you to a long page of official and unoffical errata.
The one I quoted was towards the bottom of the page under "Magic Item Creation" where you will Jason's response.
Sure thing.
The more I think about it, I am guessing the newest printing of the Core Rulebook probably has been errated to 5+ICL (instead of the 10+ICL). The reason I say that as there would have been a lot of people in this thread pointing out the discrepancy already.
Although I am only guessing. I will take a look in my book when I get home. I have a current printing.
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.
Actually, my idea is merely a suggestion on one aspect of item creation. Spellcraft has two, functions - use in creating magic items and "knowledge" of magic.
I see no problem with INT being the basis of Spellcraft for identifying magic auras, working out what spell someone just melted the party tank with etc. That is separate to one's own magical power to imbue items with magic.
Given this thread is about, or at least has turned into, how we can clarify aspects of magic item creation, I don't really care about the latter use - for the purposes of this discussion at least.
Definitely full-circle, for what, the third time in just this one thread. But here's more fuel for the fire, and a more full quote of the quote you posted supporting bypassing the Arms/Armor special prerequisite:Note that all items have prerequisites in their descriptions. These prerequisites must be met for the item to be created. Most of the time, they take the form of spells that must be known by the item's creator (although access through another magic item or spellcaster is allowed). The DC to create a magic item increases by +5 for each prerequisite the caster does not meet. The only exception to this is the requisite item creation feat, which is mandatory. In addition, you cannot create spell-trigger and spell-completion magic items without meeting their spell prerequisites.The 3*Caster level requirement is not in the item's description, leading some, myself included, to believe that they cannot be bypassed.
Honestly...without an official response on the topic it's really left up to interpretation. The text can easily be read in a way that supports adding 5 to the DC to bypass the CL requirement, but it can also be read to negate the ability to add 5 to the DC to bypass the CL requirement. The issue here is that there's one set of text that lists how the "add 5 to the DC" rule works, and another set of text in another location that isn't mentioned in the "add 5" rule at all, but is instead listed as being its own mandatory requirement.
Makes me wonder if the 3*Enhancement rule was created after the Add5 rule and they just forgot to update the text on Add5. Or...Add5 came later and they forgot about the 3*Enhancement rule when writing it.
Honestly...without an official response on the topic it's really left up to interpretation. The text can easily be read in a way that supports adding 5 to the DC to bypass the CL requirement, but it can also be read to negate the ability to add 5 to the DC to bypass the CL requirement. The issue here is that there's one set of text that lists how the "add 5 to the DC" rule works, and another set of text in another location that isn't mentioned in the "add 5" rule at all, but is instead listed as being its own mandatory requirement.
Makes me wonder if the 3*Enhancement rule was created after the Add5 rule and they just forgot to update the text on Add5. Or...Add5 came later and they forgot about the 3*Enhancement rule when writing it.
Oh, I know. I've not participated in, but I have been keeping up with this thread. I just don't like partial quotes being used as evidence one interpretation is more valid than the other. Both are valid readings of the rules, and without clarification from the developers, the correct interpretation is, it's up to your GM to tell you how they are going to play it.
Dejavu all over again, but......those bolded bits just say it's a "prerequisite," not that it can't be bypassed in the way other prerequisites can be bypassed.
Here's the part about bypassing prerequisites:
The DC to create a magic item increases by +5 for each prerequisite the caster does not meet. The only exception to this is the requisite item creation feat, which is mandatory. In addition, you cannot create spell-trigger and spell-completion magic items without meeting their spell prerequisites.Definitely full-circle, for what, the third time in just this one thread. But here's more fuel for the fire, and a more full quote of the quote you posted supporting bypassing the Arms/Armor special prerequisite:
Note that all items have prerequisites in their descriptions. These prerequisites must be met for the item to be created. Most of the time, they take the form of spells that must be known by the item's creator (although access through another magic item or spellcaster is allowed). The DC to create a magic item increases by +5 for each prerequisite the caster does not meet. The only exception to this is the requisite item creation feat, which is mandatory. In addition, you cannot create spell-trigger and spell-completion magic items without meeting their spell prerequisites.The 3*Caster level requirement is not in the item's description, leading some, myself included, to believe that they cannot be bypassed.
There isn't a "description" line for a +5 sword anywhere in the book. They had to put the text somewhere that would apply to all +5 swords, giving them all the same "prerequisite." There's no where else they could have put it to make it have any different connotation. Where would you guys like for them to have put it? Make a new entry for every combination of every "+" and weapon and list 3*bonus as a CL prereq?
Since we're rules lawyering, if we were in a court of law, and a contract lawyer tried to tell a judge that the words "Only Exception" appeared 3 sentences away from something else they wanted to claim as an exemption, but wasn't listed as one of the "Only Exceptions," the judge would hold him in contempt and throw him in jail for wasting the court's time. Honestly.
And again ... not as gross as some other stuff they apparently allow, so it shouldn't be any big deal. It's not like your +5 sword can transport 17 unwilling creatures from any plane of existence to any location on any other plane of existence. (like a luck blade can for the same cost)
|
|
That's a pretty harsh house rule. Have you tried it in your games? If you did can you share the results with the rest of us?As far as crafting and taking 10 is concerned.
If the caster personally without any assistance meets all the prerequisites, than I'd allow taking 10 on the check. Seeking other help, or trying to bypass a req which makes the task more difficult makes it a stress test so in that case taking 10 is not allowed. Under no circumstances is taking 20 allowed.
Harsh? it still makes magic item crafting easy compared to 3.X. It keeps crafting level appropriate. I do allow one retry for a 10 percent cost markup.
|
|
As far as crafting and taking 10 is concerned.
If the caster personally without any assistance meets all the prerequisites, than I'd allow taking 10 on the check. Seeking other help, or trying to bypass a req which makes the task more difficult makes it a stress test so in that case taking 10 is not allowed. Under no circumstances is taking 20 allowed.
That's a nice house rule too, but to be clear, it's not now the rules-as-written work.
The RAW is actually fairly silent on a fair number of details, so much of it is GM's perogative. Part of that GM empowerment thing.
The RAW is actually fairly silent on a fair number of details, so much of it is GM's perogative. Part of that GM empowerment thing.
Well, that depends on who you talk to. **glances back about 3 pages**
:)
While Sorcerers can get special powers for bloodlines, almost any character can have a dwarf or elf ancestor. If you go with the one prehistoric race theory, any human or demi human can craft boots of elvenkind.
I do not want to discuss Elf + Orc = Eorc.
The Magic Item Creation rules are a mess.
Wish you good luck, with talking to your DM, about which rules he follows and which rules he does not.
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.
You are correct, sir. Logic MADATES that the inverse MUST be true.
Picking items for which you do not meet all the prerequisites should always involve a chance of failure, unless:
1) You choose a feat which improves spellcraft.
2) You have Intelligence or spellcraft boosting items.
3) You are creating an item below your level.
4) You find someone with the correct spell or a scroll to cover the prerequisite spell, etc.
15+CL is actually a game ballanced solution that seems like a legit typo fix.
You seem to believe that prerequisites should be meaningless if you have taken no feats to specialize in crafting at all? Because that's exactly what happens with 5+CL or 10+CL. If you can simply ignore prerequisites all the day long..... then they aren't really required at all.....
Monkeywrench:
Rules say I can't bypass a crafting feat. If I'm crafting a metamagic rod, then there are two feats listed, one is craft rod, the other is the metamagic feat itself. Rules don't say I can't bypass the metamagic feat, do they?
Does that mean I can craft metamagic rods without taking the feats?
Monkeywrench:
Rules say I can't bypass a crafting feat. If I'm crafting a metamagic rod, then there are two feats listed, one is craft rod, the other is the metamagic feat itself. Rules don't say I can't bypass the metamagic feat, do they?
Does that mean I can craft metamagic rods without taking the feats?
Yup. Craft Rod is far more useful than any meta-magic feat.
Yup. Craft Rod is far more useful than any meta-magic feat.Monkeywrench:
Rules say I can't bypass a crafting feat. If I'm crafting a metamagic rod, then there are two feats listed, one is craft rod, the other is the metamagic feat itself. Rules don't say I can't bypass the metamagic feat, do they?
Does that mean I can craft metamagic rods without taking the feats?
And by the same token, if all I'm looking for is for a meta magic feat to be applied to a single spell, then Craft Staff will do that for me, plus give me more than 3 per day. There's just the issue of charging it. Right?
And by the same token, if all I'm looking for is for a meta magic feat to be applied to a single spell, then Craft Staff will do that for me, plus give me more than 3 per day. There's just the issue of charging it. Right?
I don't know if you can put metamagic on magic items using a rod.
If you tried to do that you would have to recharge the staff with the higher level spell that the metamagicked spell essentially is, and that would probably keep you from recharging it.
And by the same token, if all I'm looking for is for a meta magic feat to be applied to a single spell, then Craft Staff will do that for me, plus give me more than 3 per day. There's just the issue of charging it. Right?I don't know if you can put metamagic on magic items using a rod.
If you tried to do that you would have to recharge the staff with the higher level spell that the metamagicked spell essentially is, and that would probably keep you from recharging it.
Wouldn't need the rod. If you can bypass the metamagic feat prereq crafting a rod, then you should be able to bypass it crafting a staff with a metamagiced spell in it. It's the same prereq.
You don't need to be able to cast every spell in a staff to recharge it. You need to be able to cast any spell in the staff to recharge it, and you must dump a slot equal to the highest level spell in the staff.
Wouldn't need the rod. If you can bypass the metamagic feat prereq crafting a rod, then you should be able to bypass it crafting a staff with a metamagiced spell in it. It's the same prereq.
Except that metamagic feats are not pre requisites to items.
To quote the rules: Using metamagic feats, a caster can place spells in items at a higher level than normal.
I would interpret that as meaning that you need the metamagic feat to place a metamagicked spell in an item.
You don't need to be able to cast every spell in a staff to recharge it. You need to be able to cast any spell in the staff to recharge it, and you must dump a slot equal to the highest level spell in the staff.
You have to dump something equal to the highest level slot to recharge it. If you have a maximized fireball in there, that's a 6th level spell, not a 3rd level spell.
Wouldn't need the rod. If you can bypass the metamagic feat prereq crafting a rod, then you should be able to bypass it crafting a staff with a metamagiced spell in it. It's the same prereq.Except that metamagic feats are not pre requisites to items.
To quote the rules: Using metamagic feats, a caster can place spells in items at a higher level than normal.
I would interpret that as meaning that you need the metamagic feat to place a metamagicked spell in an item.
So you can't bypass that because it's a spell completion item and you can't bypass spell prereqs on those. Is that what you're saying?
You have to dump something equal to the highest level slot to recharge it. If you have a maximized fireball in there, that's a 6th level spell, not a 3rd level spell.
Well yeah, but you might as well throw a couple other 6th level spells into it as well that you're not going to use, at higher charge numbers, to bring the total cost of the staff down.
So you can't bypass that because it's a spell completion item and you can't bypass spell prereqs on those. Is that what you're saying?
I'm saying that its not a prerequisite at all. It seems to be its own funny thing coming somewhere out of left field (which seems to be part for the course for item creation rules)
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
You are correct, sir. Logic MADATES that the inverse MUST be true.Picking items for which you do not meet all the prerequisites should always involve a chance of failure, unless:
1) You choose a feat which improves spellcraft.
2) You have Intelligence or spellcraft boosting items.
3) You are creating an item below your level.
4) You find someone with the correct spell or a scroll to cover the prerequisite spell, etc.15+CL is actually a game ballanced solution that seems like a legit typo fix.
You seem to believe that prerequisites should be meaningless if you have taken no feats to specialize in crafting at all? Because that's exactly what happens with 5+CL or 10+CL. If you can simply ignore prerequisites all the day long..... then they aren't really required at all.....
I'm sorry, but I must disagree, logic does no such thing. Furthermore, I'd point you back to my Druid example.
CL +15 means that a reasonably built Druid crafting an item at his CL cannot take a 10, and has a 50% chance to fail the craft roll.
That Druid meets every requirement for crafting that bag of tricks (gray), even the ones that don't really exist (read: CL). Yet at CL + 15, he's got a chance to fail at crafting it. That completely violates "as long as they're picking items for which they meet all the prereqs, they should have no chance of failure." no matter which way you slice it.
So I really really doubt they meant to use CL + 15. If you want to houserule it that way, feel free.
As for what I believe? I believe that the skill check for crafting items is not (and was never meant to be) a way to limit what items characters craft. Quite the opposite. Skill checks were introduced to the craft system to give characters greater freedom in item crafting by giving them a way to bypass item prerequisites. To some people this seems like too much freedom, especially for wizards and other Int-based casters. I can respect that opinion, but I just don't agree with it.
Time and Money will always be the real limiters on what characters can craft, and they've always worked well enough in my games.
As for what I believe? I believe that the skill check for crafting items is not (and was never meant to be) a way to limit what items characters craft. Quite the opposite. Skill checks were introduced to the craft system to give characters greater freedom in item crafting by giving them a way to bypass item prerequisites. To some people this seems like too much freedom, especially for wizards and other Int-based casters. I can respect that opinion, but I just don't agree with it.
Time and Money will always be the real limiters on what characters can craft, and they've always worked well enough in my games.
I agree with this completely, and especially emphasis mine on the bolded part.
I'm sorry, but I must disagree, logic does no such thing. Furthermore, I'd point you back to my Druid example.
CL +15 means that a reasonably built Druid crafting an item at his CL cannot take a 10, and has a 50% chance to fail the craft roll.
Some might say that your druid wasn't "reasonably built" if you could have upped his intelligence by two points and met all the prereqs, knowing you were going to play a crafting character.
Personally, I don't see a problem with a character having to wait a level to craft stuff if he used INT as a dump stat.
Ughbash - my same response goes your way. If someone built a trap disarmer, and then put no points into disable device, then I fully expect him to not be very good at disarming traps. If a character wanted to be a magic crafter, (emphasize the word craft) and he put no points in spellcraft (same emphasis) then he's SOL. No sympathy here.
For what it's worth, it seems to me after we've identified the next Typeo (it says 10 in some parts of the rules and 5 in other parts of the rules) that the Paizo developers actually were worried a bit about this problem, and had a fix en-route, but the older clunkier not-proof-read section of the rules (magic items) made it into the book. I would at least make the check 10+ICL in my games, seeing how apparently the more well written half of the rules references a 10 instead of a 5. This system:
Base Check DC 10+ICL,
+10 for each missing prereq
or this system:
Base Check DC 10+ICL
+5 for each missing prereq, but ICL counts as a bypassable prereq that must be bypassed
...produces the same sort of difficulties in producing things way over your head that I'm looking for, and also allows the INT Dump Stat druid to take 10 on his rolls for stuff he meets prereqs on. I think it's the best of both worlds. And for all we know, they might have been shooting for something exactly like that before the wrong rules got sent to the print shop.
At this point, all we do know is that one part of the rules says "5+ICL," and another part says "10+ICL," so there's not even a clear idea what the RAW are.
I'm seriously thinking about writing and publishing a 3rd party supplement to fix all this mess. It's pretty obvious that Paizo isn't interested, so it's a great market opportunity.
You are correct, sir. Logic MADATES that the inverse MUST be true.Picking items for which you do not meet all the prerequisites should always involve a chance of failure, unless:
1) You choose a feat which improves spellcraft.
2) You have Intelligence or spellcraft boosting items.
3) You are creating an item below your level.
4) You find someone with the correct spell or a scroll to cover the prerequisite spell, etc.15+CL is actually a game ballanced solution that seems like a legit typo fix.
You seem to believe that prerequisites should be meaningless if you have taken no feats to specialize in crafting at all? Because that's exactly what happens with 5+CL or 10+CL. If you can simply ignore prerequisites all the day long..... then they aren't really required at all.....
I'm sorry, but I must disagree, logic does no such thing. Furthermore, I'd point you back to my Druid example.
CL +15 means that a reasonably built Druid crafting an item at his CL cannot take a 10, and has a 50% chance to fail the craft roll.
That Druid meets every requirement for crafting that bag of tricks (gray), even the ones that don't really exist (read: CL). Yet at CL + 15, he's got a chance to fail at crafting it. That completely violates "as long as they're picking items for which they meet all the prereqs, they should have no chance of failure." no matter which way you slice it.
So I really really doubt they meant to use CL + 15. If you want to houserule it that way, feel free.
As for what I believe? I believe that the skill check for crafting items is not (and was never meant to be) a way to limit what items characters craft. Quite the opposite. Skill checks were introduced to the craft system to give characters greater freedom in item crafting by giving them a way to bypass item prerequisites. To some people this seems like too much freedom, especially for wizards and other Int-based casters. I can respect that opinion, but I just...
Druids would know the relative stakes to create items of his level... and therefore should choose to have a decent INT for this reason or to offset it with a single feat. A Level 3 Druid would have this modifier.
+3 Skills+3 Class Skill
vs a DC of 18.
So... yes... at this point, it's their choice, if they want to craft, to make sure they get a +2 to Intelligence. 15+CL means that a person can make a BAD crafter.
5+CL means that you cannot make a bad crafter. Someone who has 0 Spellcraft Skill, an intelligence of 6 (-2 modifier),can still take 10 to create your Bag of Tricks(Grey).
So yes... if you want to have a crafter "not suck" make sure he is intelligent enough, or make sure you have Magical Aptitude, or skill focus spellcraft.
@Ughbash
Um... alot of what you said wasn't true.
I don't have a problem with the old rules, because they were ballanced to allow only characters of a proper Caster Level the ability to create items (furthermore, spells and prerequisites were required HANDS DOWN!)
In this new system, it requires more of a challenge and game ballance because of these two issues:
-A level 10 Wizard can create a CL 18 item no problem, ignoring the CL of the item as well as the prerequisites!!!
This would have been an auto fail in 3.5.... but it's not even a challenge in Pathfinder.
So I would venture to say, that 3.5 was more ballanced than pathfinder on this issue.
The above should read, it requires more of a challenge to game balance because of these two issues:
- Prerequisites can be superseded by a +5 to DC.
- There aren't any more CL requirements.