| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But if the GM enforces crafting times, 40 to 100 days is a long time to not be out gaining XP. A lot can happen in 2-3 months.
If you do not give the PCs adequate downtime to pursue this sort of thing, then you are denying them one of their biggest resources, a feat, and it is not fair to that character.
"Thank you for saving the world.... BUT WAIT!" and "A CHALLENGER APPEARS!" are two of the absolute most annoying roleplaying game tropes of all time. The world does not need saving every 5 and a half minutes, and if it does, then I want better pay and more benefits or I'm going to go on the shortest and most effective strike in the history of the multiverse.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
i have something to say about about pregame crafting
i am perfectly fine with pregame crafting for discounts, you are essentially selling your precious feat slots for cash. and feats are also a highly limited resource. and a 50% discount is fine. items sell for 50% so crafting for 50% isn't bad. items actually do have upper limits on power level. and some martials would love the benefit of saving a great deal of money on a backup weapon or few. not every DM ignores the sunder rules. weekly william still uses them.
now for the point on the difficulty of crafting
not every item crafter is a wizard.
the reason the crafting DCs may seem 'easy' is because they weren't balancing it against wizards with maxed out intellegence who maxed out spellcraft. they were balancing it against spellcasters who aren't so intellegence focused, like clerics, druids, oracles and sorcerers. when you judge how difficult a task should be, you shouldn't balance it against the perfect individual for the task. you should balance it against other viably compatible individuals who may feel like performing the task. the item creation DCs may be easy on the wizard's end. but look at the other classes who may wish to do this. and look at the noncasters with master craftsman. if you focus on making it a challenge for the best man for the job. you are removing the ability for others to be viably effective at the task. if we balanced item creation around the optimized wizard, than other spellcasters wouldn't be viable crafters. nor would noncasters with master craftsman.
crafting may be easy for the wizard, but that is because the wizard gets the primary skill (spellcraft) as a class skill, is heavily focused on the skill's key attribute (intellegence), is encouraged to invest in the skill (spellcraft), and gets a heavy amount of skill points to invest in the skill due to his focus on the attribute that increases skill points gained (intellegence).
But if the GM enforces crafting times, 40 to 100 days is a long time to not be out gaining XP. A lot can happen in 2-3 months.If you do not give the PCs adequate downtime to pursue this sort of thing, then you are denying them one of their biggest resources, a feat, and it is not fair to that character.
"Thank you for saving the world.... BUT WAIT!" and "A CHALLENGER APPEARS!" are two of the absolute most annoying roleplaying game tropes of all time. The world does not need saving every 5 and a half minutes, and if it does, then I want better pay and more benefits or I'm going to go on the shortest and most effective strike in the history of the multiverse.
As GM I am not obligated to give the players everything they want at all times either. Just like it's fair game for me to sunder the fighter's favored weapon and he has to use his back up (denying him his feats in the process), it is perfectly fair for me to not give the players 3 months whenever they want it just for crafting. I should, and do, allow time for crafting. I just don't to it all the time.
What's really interesting about the way I do it: there is no way they can exceed the WBL tables unless I allow for it. I have control even when I give them the time to increase their power and versatility.
This also goes to the heart of the original question: is crafting too easy? Nope. It is only too easy if the GM lets it be too easy.
But if the GM enforces crafting times, 40 to 100 days is a long time to not be out gaining XP. A lot can happen in 2-3 months.You don't have to stop adventuring in order to craft. You can craft while you adventure. Still, that's a lot of time.
If you do it while adventuring, you're increasing the crafting time by a factor of 4. Now we're talking up to 8-12 months. Crafting while adventuring is great for the consumables but not so great for the more expensive items.
If you do it while adventuring, you're increasing the crafting time by a factor of 4. Now we're talking up to 8-12 months. Crafting while adventuring is great for the consumables but not so great for the more expensive items.The point still stands that you can do it while adventuring. Also, you don't have to increase the crafting time while adventuring if you can dedicate a full eight hours to it. Get a Ring of Sustenance. You now sleep for six hours less, which means you only need an extra two dedicated hours for crafting. I think that's very much manageable.
Of course it's better to have time off to craft, but you can still DO it, which is my whole point.
You do increase the crafting time while adventuring. It is spelled out exactly how. A ring of sustenance doesn't change how much time you have to craft.
From the PRD (all emphasis is mine):
The creator also needs a fairly quiet, comfortable, and well-lit place in which to work. Any place suitable for preparing spells is suitable for making items. Creating an item requires 8 hours of work per 1,000 gp in the item's base price (or fraction thereof), with a minimum of at least 8 hours. Potions and scrolls are an exception to this rule; they can take as little as 2 hours to create (if their base price is 250 gp or less). Scrolls and potions whose base price is more than 250 gp, but less than 1,000 gp, take 8 hours to create, just like any other magic item. The character must spend the gold at the beginning of the construction process. Regardless of the time needed for construction, a caster can create no more than one magic item per day. This process can be accelerated to 4 hours of work per 1,000 gp in the item's base price (or fraction thereof) by increasing the DC to create the item by +5.
The caster can work for up to 8 hours each day. He cannot rush the process by working longer each day, but the days need not be consecutive, and the caster can use the rest of his time as he sees fit. If the caster is out adventuring, he can devote 4 hours each day to item creation, although he nets only 2 hours worth of work. This time is not spent in one continuous period, but rather during lunch, morning preparation, and during watches at night. If time is dedicated to creation, it must be spent in uninterrupted 4-hour blocks. This work is generally done in a controlled environment, where distractions are at a minimum, such as a laboratory or shrine. Work that is performed in a distracting or dangerous environment nets only half the amount of progress (just as with the adventuring caster).
Crafting while adventuring is entirely possible but not easy and incredibly time consuming for the higher cost items.
As GM I am not obligated to give the players everything they want at all times either. Just like it's fair game for me to sunder the fighter's favored weapon and he has to use his back up (denying him his feats in the process), it is perfectly fair for me to not give the players 3 months whenever they want it just for crafting. I should, and do, allow time for crafting. I just don't to it all the time.
And I trust you make it clear to your players that they are only allowed to create items when you decide they can and effectively, by virtue of what is below, only if you decide what they're making is OK?
What's really interesting about the way I do it: there is no way they can exceed the WBL tables unless I allow for it. I have control even when I give them the time to increase their power and versatility.
... I'm sorry, I'm going to have to stop myself here. There's no way for me to hold my tongue and still address that statement.
This also goes to the heart of the original question: is crafting too easy? Nope. It is only too easy if the GM lets it be too easy.
"Rule 0" is not an excuse for rules to be broken.
And Bob, To address your next post before you even make it.
"I cast secure shelter"
As GM I am not obligated to give the players everything they want at all times either. Just like it's fair game for me to sunder the fighter's favored weapon and he has to use his back up (denying him his feats in the process), it is perfectly fair for me to not give the players 3 months whenever they want it just for crafting. I should, and do, allow time for crafting. I just don't to it all the time.And I trust you make it clear to your players that they are only allowed to create items when you decide they can and effectively, by virtue of what is below, only if you decide what they're making is OK?
What's really interesting about the way I do it: there is no way they can exceed the WBL tables unless I allow for it. I have control even when I give them the time to increase their power and versatility.... I'm sorry, I'm going to have to stop myself here. There's no way for me to hold my tongue and still address that statement.
This also goes to the heart of the original question: is crafting too easy? Nope. It is only too easy if the GM lets it be too easy.
"Rule 0" is not an excuse for rules to be broken.
I'm going to tackle the whole thing at once: I write the adventures my players come to enjoy. I have had roughly the same players for more than a decade. They are well aware of my style of GM. I give them a lot of freedom but there is no way that I'm going to let a power-hungry player craft to his heart's content to effectively double his, and the rest of the party's wealth. If they want their characters to take a couple of years off for crafting, then I'm going to run a different campaign. Remember that a +10 weapon for the fighter (+4 sword and +6 extras, highest DC is 18) will take 200 days to craft. Headband of Mental Superiority (DC 21) will take 144 days. That's only two items both are affordable by level 12 characters. I'm not going to allow for that to happen. Both are most likely within reach for a level 12 crafter (Int 20 + 12 Ranks + Skill Focus = +23).
At no point did I use Rule Zero. As GM I am in control of what the opponents are, how many there are, and when they are there. That's my job as GM. If I just allow the players to do whatever they want, all the time, then what am I needed for? They can handle rolling dice on their own.
The only way I have ever seen a game get out of control is when the GM let it happen. I was that way many years ago. I learned how to maintain control by telling the players "yes" and "no" at the right times. I may not be perfect now but I am a much stronger GM than I used to be. I don't let the players run roughshod over the adventure and then whine when they are wiping out the opposition (CR +4 or more) in 1 round. I have seen this complaint many times and one of the biggest contributing factors is often a deviation from wbl through crafting.
Crafting while adventuring is entirely possible but not easy and incredibly time consuming for the higher cost items.They assume a standard adventurer, not factoring in the Ring of Sustenance or similar effect. Maybe you didn't read the part where they outlined how this was time spent not dedicating blocks of pure crafting time.
This time is not spent in one continuous period, but rather during lunch, morning preparation, and during watches at night.If time is dedicated to creation, it must be spent in uninterrupted 4-hour blocks. This work is generally done in a controlled environment, where distractions are at a minimum, such as a laboratory or shrine. Work that is performed in a distracting or dangerous environment nets only half the amount of progress (just as with the adventuring caster).Just as I said earlier, with dedicated time to crafting, you do not suffer the penalties for "adventuring". What do you think happens if you stop in a town in the middle of an adventure for a few days, maybe so the group can gather information, and choose to craft something? Are you still counted as "adventuring" despite the fact that you have dedicated time for it? You're being ridiculous, and I suspect avoiding reading the actual rules.
Also, nowhere did I indicate any kind of attempt to work longer each day, but for some reason you decided to bold that part. Now I suspect that you simply haven't read my post.
Again, a Ring of Sustenance does in fact change how much free time you have that is not spent sleeping, and if everyone else is sleeping you can dedicate that time to crafting with no penalties (in four hour blocks) as long as there is no interruption to your work. Effectively that does change the amount of time you have available to craft.
If you're going to criticize, at least get the very rules that you quote in a vain attempt at defending your position correct.
If you are out adventuring, then you are not in town resting. You may still have some adventuring to do, but you are not out doing it. You can then spend more time per day crafting. It is exactly what the rule says.
There is nothing that changes how much time you can spend crafting. Read the rule again. It is very clear: you cannot rush the process by crafting longer days. Your ring of sustenance does not change that in the slightest. Show me where it says the ring allows you to craft longer days. The ring allows you to rest with shorter times but it has zero effect on crafting.
And Bob, To address your next post before you even make it.
"I cast secure shelter"
This addresses only part of the crafting while adventuring. It allows you to craft 4 hours a day and gain 4 hours worth of crafting. Without it, you would craft for 4 hours and gain only 2 hours of crafting.
So before you assume you know my stance, you should ask me how any particular spell or item might impact the crafting time. You are making assumptions about my position that are very far off base.
It's like 'Power Word, Blind' taking up seven pages because it's a seventh-level spell. Never mind that it's just one word.
Well, it's originally a word from the language of whales. It was even longer before it was translated into arcane.
|
If they are selling stuff... follow the rules and remind players that they get 50% of the value of their items. This is not a game for merchants and set the expectation that item crafting will not make their characters money.
I myself give two scenarios.
1. I want to sell NOW. Ok, 50% cost at the pawnbroker.
2. I am willing to wait to find a place to sell at fair market value. Ok, pay 10g a day for a bazaar permit and then I'll determine a percent chance that someone will be interested in your wares based on the local economy and such. If then my roll says the Captain of the City Guard is interested in your +5 vorpal scimitar, then you'll get fair market value for it.
I doubt a random Captain of the City Guard has that kind of money.
I allow my players to sell that kind of stuff through auction houses.It will require time to set up the auction (not less than a month), the player should chose the base sell price for the item, there will be a random roll with modifiers to see how much they get (the time a auction was publicised is a modifier to the roll, less than six month [no internet ;)] his a negative modifier), the auction house keep 10% of the sell price or 10% of the minimum price you have set if the item don't sell and so on.
With a very lucky roll they will get 110-120% of the value of the item after a year they have put it on auction. A very unlucky roll and the item will be stolen or the owner of the auction house will flee with the money.
Other modifier are the reputation of the auction house, the size of the city and so on.
It is still in development so I am not giving any hard number for the modifiers.
But how does that work with non-gp wealth? If they find magic items worth 400k when the WBL says they should have about 400k, but they can't use those items effectively so they sell and say they don't have item creation feats - do you then let them play with just their 200k they get for selling, ending up severely under-equipped?
Well, yes - and no. It's all just a big pool, money and items. The characters find the items, and - if they don't like them, which happens quite often, recently - they sell them, thereby diminishing their return.
Which means that they would be under-equipped, according to the WBL, for the time being. Until they loot the next treasury.But my players have never complained about it. I design the encounters and adventures according to the actual strength of the party, not the supposed strength as indicated by WBL.
And that underlines my point, that WBL is just a guideline, not a hard rule.
Only one of my players comes into contact with the WBL regularly, because he is the one whose characters die most often, so when he rolls up new characters, we use the WBL as a guideline for his equipment...
|
|
So, if the rogue player maxes his Sleight of Hand and steals a bunch of Rings of Protection and Amulets of Natural armor and sells them, you won't downsize the found wealth to compensate for his 200k extra gold?It is my opinion that the wealth by level guidelines are intended to be used on the end result at all times, and never taking into account how something was acquired. That's the way we've used it all the time, and I can tell you IC feats are pretty popular anyway.
Why should a wizard that pays 5k for his ring come out richer than the rogue that steals such a ring for free, or the barbarian that chucks of the rogues arm for stealing the ring and takes it back?
So you are penalizing the other players as the rogue has more money?
Or you force them to divide the found treasure in a uneven way so that the rogue will get less till he is on par with the WBL?And:
If I were to chose the opposite route, use most of my wealth to buy potions, scrolls and other consumable items, regularly burning out the stuff during an adventure so that I am regularly well under the WBL at the end of the adventure, you will increase the treasure found to compensate?
That way I could have the advantage of being capable to use thousand of GP every game day in expendable items as I will have a guarantee that the money will be "refunded" in the treasure we will found.
My effective power would be higher than the norm while my WBL will be lower.
If I were to chose the opposite route, use most of my wealth to buy potions, scrolls and other consumable items, regularly burning out the stuff during an adventure so that I am regularly well under the WBL at the end of the adventure, you will increase the treasure found to compensate?
That way I could have the advantage of being capable to use thousand of GP every game day in expendable items as I will have a guarantee that the money will be "refunded" in the treasure we will found.
My effective power would be higher than the norm while my WBL will be lower.
Exactly. Good point.
now for the point on the difficulty of crafting
not every item crafter is a wizard.
the reason the crafting DCs may seem 'easy' is because they weren't balancing it against wizards with maxed out intellegence who maxed out spellcraft. they were balancing it against spellcasters who aren't so intellegence focused, like clerics, druids, oracles and sorcerers. when you judge how difficult a task should be, you shouldn't balance it against the perfect individual for the task. you should balance it against other viably compatible individuals who may feel like performing the task. the item creation DCs may be easy on the wizard's end. but look at the other classes who may wish to do this. and look at the noncasters with master craftsman. if you focus on making it a challenge for the best man for the job. you are removing the ability for others to be viably effective at the task. if we balanced item creation around the optimized wizard, than other spellcasters wouldn't be viable crafters. nor would noncasters with master craftsman.
crafting may be easy for the wizard, but that is because the wizard gets the primary skill (spellcraft) as a class skill, is heavily focused on the skill's key attribute (intellegence), is encouraged to invest in the skill (spellcraft), and gets a heavy amount of skill points to invest in the skill due to his focus on the attribute that increases skill points gained (intellegence).
This is an interesting point, and was made by someone earlier. Perhaps the rules aren't so unbalanced for non-wizards, and perhaps you wouldn't have as many auto-successes. however, my counterpoitn would be that the majority of crafters are wizards, precisely because they are best at it. If a party doesn't have a wizard, I can see a good reason for someone else to do some crafting. If they do have a wizard it really doesn't make sense for anyone else to invest in the crafting feats. So the rules make it tremendously easy for the vast majority of crafters, in my opinion.
The only way I have ever seen a game get out of control is when the GM let it happen. I was that way many years ago. I learned how to maintain control by telling the players "yes" and "no" at the right times. I may not be perfect now but I am a much stronger GM than I used to be. I don't let the players run roughshod over the adventure and then whine when they are wiping out the opposition (CR +4 or more) in 1 round. I have seen this complaint many times and one of the biggest contributing factors is often a deviation from wbl through crafting.
Interesting point, and arguably correct, although I do foresee times when the only option a GM has to keep a game under control with unruly players is to shut it down. I've been GMing a long time, but don't believe I can honestly say it would be impossible for me to lose control of a game if the right (or the wrong) players were involved. The game is kind of like a social contract - the GM not only has to be willing to lead, but the players have to be willing to follow. It's not all on the GM's head.
As for WBL, I almost completely ignore it. I find it useful in only two ways: 1) for outfitting characters and NPCs created aboce 1st level, and 2) as a secondary diagnostic tool if your party seems either under or overpowered. For me what is important is how the party is doing against the challenges I'm throwing at them. If they are breezing, I up the difficulty a bit. If they are struggling, I cut it a bit. Repeat as necessary to find the right balance. Only if the problem persists do I do a spot check on WBL to see if a boost or cut in treasure would also be productive.
But if the GM enforces crafting times, 40 to 100 days is a long time to not be out gaining XP. A lot can happen in 2-3 months.You don't have to stop adventuring in order to craft. You can craft while you adventure. Still, that's a lot of time.
This is very dependent on what type of campaign you are running. Admittedly, since the lightning fast level progression introduced by 3.0 (which has been slowed somewhat by PF), it is possible for campaigns to go from 1-20 level in less than a year of game time, but there are still lots of campaigns out there that are on a more leisurely (and dare I say realistic, whatever that word means in the context of a fantasy RPG) timeline. There are a lot of us geezers out there who remember fondly the days of 1st and 2nd edition, when campaigns spanned epic lengths of time, and aging rules actually were relevant (other than for certain cheesy optimized builds), and try to recreate them in current campaigns. And I don't think it's just the geezers, given the popularity of the Kingmaker AP, which spans several years at the least and possibly decades.
Nigrescence, if you want to rewrite the crafting rules for your campaign, that's perfectly fine by me. If you are using the rules as they are written though, then crafting while adventuring is not as easy as you are portraying. You can make some adjustments but no matter what you do, you are still limited in some way.
I have ignored none of the rules. I have addressed each of your concerns within the context of the rules as they are written.
It seems to me that you are just looking for an argument. I am not at this point so I will not be continuing this with you.
The only way I have ever seen a game get out of control is when the GM let it happen. I was that way many years ago. I learned how to maintain control by telling the players "yes" and "no" at the right times. I may not be perfect now but I am a much stronger GM than I used to be. I don't let the players run roughshod over the adventure and then whine when they are wiping out the opposition (CR +4 or more) in 1 round. I have seen this complaint many times and one of the biggest contributing factors is often a deviation from wbl through crafting.
Interesting point, and arguably correct, although I do foresee times when the only option a GM has to keep a game under control with unruly players is to shut it down. I've been GMing a long time, but don't believe I can honestly say it would be impossible for me to lose control of a game if the right (or the wrong) players were involved. The game is kind of like a social contract - the GM not only has to be willing to lead, but the players have to be willing to follow. It's not all on the GM's head.
As for WBL, I almost completely ignore it. I find it useful in only two ways: 1) for outfitting characters and NPCs created aboce 1st level, and 2) as a secondary diagnostic tool if your party seems either under or overpowered. For me what is important is how the party is doing against the challenges I'm throwing at them. If they are breezing, I up the difficulty a bit. If they are struggling, I cut it a bit. Repeat as necessary to find the right balance. Only if the problem persists do I do a spot check on WBL to see if a boost or cut in treasure would also be productive.
I agree completely. Fortunately I am at a point where I can decide who is in my games. I wasn't always that lucky. My players work with me to keep the campaign under control. They push the envelope, which is what I would expect from them, but they also chime in when something seems too powerful or too weak.
I use the WBL to make sure that the characters can handle appropriate challenges. I am running Age of Worms for a party of 6. If I use just the treasure from the adventure, they party ends up too far behind and they find some of the challenges to be too challenging. I let them do some crafting between adventures (the wizard usually just takes the time to craft a ton of scrolls, but that's his choice). No one has tried to craft while adventuring but I'm sure if the alchemist was still with them he would.
I use Hero Lab for keeping track of the characters. Hero Lab lets me know exactly where each character is with his wealth and where he should be with a quick mouse-over.
|
|
This is an interesting point, and was made by someone earlier. Perhaps the rules aren't so unbalanced for non-wizards, and perhaps you wouldn't have as many auto-successes. however, my counterpoitn would be that the majority of crafters are wizards, precisely because they are best at it. If a party doesn't have a wizard, I can see a good reason for someone else to do some crafting. If they do have a wizard it really doesn't make sense for anyone else to invest in the crafting feats. So the rules make it tremendously easy for the vast majority of crafters, in my...
crafting may be easy for the wizard, but that is because the wizard gets the primary skill (spellcraft) as a class skill, is heavily focused on the skill's key attribute (intellegence), is encouraged to invest in the skill (spellcraft), and gets a heavy amount of skill points to invest in the skill due to his focus on the attribute that increases skill points gained (intellegence).
The witch is almost in the same situation, only a bit less class spells. And a magus will not be so far behind.
With crafting combining the ability to optomize the gear a PC has and impacting the wealth available to PCs coupled with its relative ease for those most likely to be crafters, yes it is problematic.
Also, with crafting in the midst of optomizing players you essentially eliminate 90% of the magic items in the game, because there is certainly a "best option" for each magic item slot. These types of players (also the ones most likely to want to use the Craft Feats) are not going to hold on to dropped treasure that is not optomized. They are going to sell it for gold to create optomized magic items.
THis is also why I have a personal bias against optomized players in general. While with craft feats, they essentially eliminate the use of 90% of magic items published. They do the same with every thing else, character options, spells, feats, etc. If it's not the best bang for the buck, they don't do it. And that is in brief why I don't like Crafting. It eliminates the need for a vast number of pages I've bothered to purchase from Paizo. And I just don't like that.
I think I'll just bow out of this discussion completely, since I am being accused of straw man posts and being rude and such. It has never been my intention to "straw man" or be rude, if I misunderstood something, so be it, but I have never once intended to do anything I have been accused of in this thread.
To be honest though I am not a big fan of the Pathfinder magic item system. I liked it in 3.x as it cost xpbut felt it was somewhat sterile. I felt it could use the old 1st edition touch of combing the countryside for special materials.
I agree that the magic crafting system seems too mechanical and steril without much flavor.
IMC, I use the system as is but with one exception; The character can't just throw gold pieces at the project and just craft away what ever they want. Instead, I make them convert those gold pieces into buying "Magical Supplies" (eye of Newt, wing of bat, goblin blood, etc).
If a magic item costs 1000gp to create, then 1000gp worth of "Magical supplies" are needed instead.
Why bother? You might ask.
Because, when the crafter has to buy supplies for crafting, you can use the Maximum buy rules for town size (A crafter in a dinky one horse town can't buy a full 1000gp worth of supplies there.
It lets me add some other useful rewards if the party defeats, say, an evil alchemist. They might find (for example) 500gp worth of Magical supplies in the lab.
I can also reward creativity from the crafter if he says something like " I want to collect some of the essence from that fire elemental we just killed to use on the flaming sword that I want to craft." Just asign a Magical supply value to the essence and you are good to go.
More flavor and you don't have to nerf the rules.
|
|
And Bob, To address your next post before you even make it.
"I cast secure shelter"
Magnificent mansion. Secure shelter has a limited utility.
Enchanting something while you are doing your duty as a sentinel would give a big malus to your perception rolls and to your spellcasting DC for enchanting in my campaign.
To be honest though I am not a big fan of the Pathfinder magic item system. I liked it in 3.x as it cost xpbut felt it was somewhat sterile. I felt it could use the old 1st edition touch of combing the countryside for special materials.
I agree that the magic crafting system seems too mechanical and steril without much flavor.
IMC, I use the system as is but with one exception; The character can't just throw gold pieces at the project and just craft away what ever they want. Instead, I make them convert those gold pieces into buying "Magical Supplies" (eye of Newt, wing of bat, goblin blood, etc).
If a magic item costs 1000gp to create, then 1000gp worth of "Magical supplies" are needed instead.Why bother? You might ask.
Because, when the crafter has to buy supplies for crafting, you can use the Maximum buy rules for town size (A crafter in a dinky one horse town can't buy a full 1000gp worth of supplies there.
It lets me add some other useful rewards if the party defeats, say, an evil alchemist. They might find (for example) 500gp worth of Magical supplies in the lab.
I can also reward creativity from the crafter if he says something like " I want to collect some of the essence from that fire elemental we just killed to use on the flaming sword that I want to craft." Just asign a Magical supply value to the essence and you are good to go.
More flavor and you don't have to nerf the rules.
I tried something like that in 3.5 to reduce the XP cost of items.
It require a lot of bookkeeping if you want to keep a thematic link between the gathered stuff and the end product or it will simply become "extra treasure" if you keep them generic for simplicity.It will work with some player that love the thematic link and annoy others that see only the bookkeeping. It mostly depend on your group of players.
|
This thread seems slightly divided into two. those discussing crafting and its effects on characters wealth and power, and those discussing the games economy in relation to magic items.
Magic Item Crafting is often considered commonplace but rarely used by PCs. I have a really strong dislike for the magic item system in 3.5/PFRPG because its for the most part completely rigid. The fact that its based on the character progression (CL) with little regard to what exactly goes into making the magic item is dull and unimaginative. I have a completely revised magic item (and equipment) ruleset that is not tied into the leveling system or WBL. I also dropped the XP cost years ago.
Under my system "disposable" magic items are far more commonplace. the use of wands potions and scrolls is liking to many computer games like Diablo and my games often progress for extended durations because of this. no longer does the wizard or cleric stop play because hes out of spells, if hes produced enough disposable resources for the party they continue adventuring.
People who posted increasing the CL need to take a look at the disposable items and their effect on the lower game. wizards should be building their arsenal with scrolls in a similar way to how an archer restocks on arrows (my system also have a repair ruleset to provide a similar cost for weapons and armor).
Bottom line is the current system, while ok, is VERY structured and by default very subject to abuse. These rules are designed to aid the DM, not to be used by the players. Thats why it was part of the DMG in 3.0/3.5.
On the economy side, there's only one simple answer. Do what is right for YOUR campaign. Every campaign is different (in most of mine towns below a certain wealth level don't use coins at all but barter with goods instead) and the control of magic items is crucial to the balance of an economy.
One last word, if you want your campaign to be free of magic items created and sold by players simply don't allow them to be sold. unless you can find someone who can tell the difference between a masterwork, +1 and +5 suit of leather armor there likely to not buy it for more than just 150gp. :)
A few more questions that came to me in my reading of this thread:
Question 1: If you have a 50% chance of making an item at a 50% discount, is that (for practical purposes) the rough equivalent of having a 100% chance of making the item for 100% of the base price (i.e. just buying it)? If it is, doesn't that mean that having a 55% chance of making the item at "cost" is an advantage?
My Opinion: The average results over many items attempted are the same, but in the short term, you might get lucky or unlucky and end up saving/wasting some money, which adds some randomness and danger and excitement to the item creation process, so I like it. For small, cheap items, yes the results are similar, because you can try, and fail, to make a few cloaks of resistance +1 and eventually the failures and successes add up to essentially the same result as just buying the darn cloaks, albeit with a chance of saving/wasting some money. That said, those items are easy to make (as they should be) and the roll needed will usually have greater than a 50% chance of success anyway. For the example of the 50% chance items, you have the possibility of saving some money coupled with the security of knowing you'll always be able to try to make one if you need one (whereas buying items outright would be subject to availability, in theory). But for larger, more expensive items, that failure is pretty crushing, because you just wasted like 20,000gp of party funds and have nothing to show for it. That said, a wise party will probably not give you the money for that item attempt, and if it's your money alone, then you have only yourself to blame if the dice come out against you. You took a chance and lost that time. If you get lucky, you just invested all of your money into one pretty awesome item, but the common wisdom is that spreading out your wealth into multiple smaller, cheaper items, is actually better, so you might have outsmarted yourself anyway. So ultimately, as I see it, the random chance of making a "big ticket item" combined with the nearly-automatic chance of making a lesser item, encourages people to do exactly what the common wisdom on items says to do, fill up your slots with a lot of smaller items instead of blowing it all on one big one.
Question 2: Shouldn't all of the requirements for making an item actually be required?
My Opinion: The caster level of the item should be a "soft requirement" in the sense that you should be able to TRY to make something that's a little over your head. I don't have a problem with a PC trying to make an item that has a CL 1-3 levels higher than his current level. That said, I think there should be an added DC penalty for trying something that's over your head, and I feel like some of the other stuff should be "hard" requirements. I mean, if you don't know the spell "Bull's Strength" you ought not be able to make a Belt of Giant Strength at all. This raises the issue of collaborative item creation. Can the Cleric supply the Bull's Strength spell while the Wizard makes the belt? In practice, I don't have a problem with this, but again, I think that the process should more difficult/time consuming in such cases, but in theory the other collaborators could roll "aid another" to add to the item creation dice roll too, thus lowering the roll needed. Therefore I'd probably make all of the requirements actually required, and if the guy with the item creation feat doesn't have the pertinent spells, etc but someone else does, there's a +5 to the DC. Of the collaborator(s) roll a successful "aid another", they add +2 to the roll, thus taking the edge off of that penalty.
Question 2: Shouldn't all of the requirements for making an item actually be required?
My Opinion: The caster level of the item should be a "soft requirement" in the sense that you should be able to TRY to make something that's a little over your head. I don't have a problem with a PC trying to make an item that has a CL 1-3 levels higher than his current level. That said, I think there should be an added DC penalty for trying something that's over your head, and I feel like some of the other stuff should be "hard" requirements. I mean, if you don't know the spell "Bull's Strength" you ought not be able to make a Belt of Giant Strength at all. This raises the issue of collaborative item creation. Can the Cleric supply the Bull's Strength spell while the Wizard makes the belt? In practice, I don't have a problem with this, but again, I think that the process should more difficult/time consuming in such cases, but in theory the other collaborators could roll "aid another" to add to the item creation dice roll too, thus lowering the roll needed. Therefore I'd probably make all of the requirements actually required, and if the guy with the item creation feat doesn't have the pertinent spells, etc but someone else does, there's a +5 to the DC. Of the collaborator(s) roll a successful "aid another", they add +2 to the roll, thus taking the edge off of that penalty
As written, if you don't have Bull's Strength, it's a +5 to the DC to craft the item. If you get another caster to cast Bull's Strength for you, you now have the requirement, so no increase in your DC. You are as always free to house rule in this case, although keep in mind by doing so you make the Master Craftsman feat nearly worthless, as the entire point of the feat is so a non-spell caster can be so awesome that they don't need to have the requirements, they just accept a much higher crafting DC.
(Also, I know I kinda said I was bowing out of this thread, but I'll just refrain from discussing that particular issue)
dot
|
|
if you restrict or eliminate players' ability to outfit their character they will be woefully ill-equipped to face the challenges the system has in store for them.
I find this complete BS. A normal character with limited magic items are easily a match for CR's based at their appropriate levels. It's when your players start asking their fellow wizard to make +6 wisdom headbands for all of them that 'they built their charcters to make items, don't rob them' epic fails. There is a differance between making a few items to augment some of the party. Becoming a magic-item press is something else. Money is a limiting factor? Not at all. There are bound to be many items the party does not care to own, and if you sell them 1/2 price, RAW, there's more than enough cash to fill a party's dream list.
Abusing the hell out of item creation feats, even in a magic heavy game like pathfinder, is the quickest way to balance-death.|
|
No they are not. Most magic items come from experts with th master craftsman feat or adepts. A PC class spell caster is a rare, highly trained expert. Not only that they work with magic items almost every day. Also, um, Golarion doe seem, basically, awash in magic items.Are magic items, by raw, too easy to make?
Yes. Yes they are. And they are made far, far too quickly to boot.
Yes...yes they are. It's Sears Catalog gone horribly wrong.
|
|
2) It, combined with the assumption of Magic Mart, is a tremendous boon to optimizers looking to squeeze out every last bonus. No more having to live and work with what you find adventuring. You can now have exactly the magic items you want, provided you have enough money.
3) It has upped the power level of the game.
4) For some people it creates an immersion issue, as the magic economy adds another thing that just defies any logic. Hardly the worst offender in that regard, though.
These x10...ESPECIALLY #2
I have issues with the ic rules but it's not the dc for sure. You take as an example the best ic class and that has maxed spellcraft. What about a 5th level cleric with int 12 and one craft rank.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, that also bugs me.
It's like 'Power Word, Blind' taking up seven pages because it's a seventh-level spell. Never mind that it's just one word.
I think there's probably a bit more involved than just writing down the word that needs to be said. Here, I'll prove it...
Blind
Yet I still can't cast the spell. Need more proof?
Kill
Yet you're still alive.
I don't think crafting is too easy, it should work every time by taking 10. Also imo by crafting you should be able to have more gp-value in gear than someone who can't craft. These rules exist for a reason, and I think they're spot on and vital for my enjoyment of the game.
Actually the mechanics of the magic item creation rules are fine.
It's the campaign world (in nearly all cases) which is in question here.
It really does pay dividends to work out the demographics of your game world.
How many people of what level ranges, what % of those who are magic users, what % of those are magic item crafters....
Once you do this - making reasonable assumptions of course, you will find most game worlds have a very limited number of item crafters who practice above the scroll/potion/wand level.
This makes them valuable and rare - and valuable/rare assets get snaffled up by the 'great and powerful' - they are not usually available to the general populace - they are retained by those who can afford them.
However, the PC's are EXCEPTIONS as has been stated - heroes whose legends are supposed to stand out in a game world and who stand apart from the normal demographic standards.
Fair enough - BUT - these exceptional heroes live IN the gameworld and don't make IT exceptional - they interrelate in all kinds of ways, and here's some examples of how....
1. A PC who goes the crafting route will become a competitor to the established suppliers - potential conflict.
2. The 'great and powerful' will want to snaffle up the PC's abilities and own them - potential interference from those who can afford to make the PC's life difficult if they don't provide their services on demand.
3. The Christmas Tree effect. This one is woefully underplayed by GM's - but if a group get a reputation for dripping with magical items - they will be targetted by capable Rogues etc. looking for the easy acquisition - or at the very least the periodic paying of protection money until such time as the PC's deal with the problem in a FINAL way....
4. The jealous temple who have discovered that your Wizard is making clerical items they regard as their 'monopoly market' - and put political or other pressure on you to stop.
Add to this the odd tweak - such as variability in the supply of necessary materials, the necessity to maintain work facilities (or pay for access to them) and the 'unbalanced' nature of enchantment levels out nicely.
No abilities on PC's exist in a vaccuum unless you are running a 'popcorn & bubblegum' casual 'paper-MMO' type of game - in which case what are you complaining about? The advantage of making your own kit and equip yourself just as you desire is reward enough. No-one gets to choose the loot from their latest adventure - and they shouldn't just convert it into cash and make exactly what they want as a matter of course.
There should be challenges there too.
GM's just need to get a grip of their own games and make those challenges reasonable and a part of the gameworld rather than rolling over every time a player insists that because it is in the book, they should automatically be able to do it as and when they choose.
NO campaign world should work like that, and thus no mechanics need to be changed. The challenge and roleplay should be about getting the enchanter into a position to make the item - not on some random roll. The GM's Guide is a rule book too!
|
|
No they are not. Most magic items come from experts with th master craftsman feat or adepts. A PC class spell caster is a rare, highly trained expert. Not only that they work with magic items almost every day. Also, um, Golarion doe seem, basically, awash in magic items.
With magical weapons as easy to create as they've become in Pathfinder (a commoner with a couple of feats can create them), the trait "Heirloom Weapon" doesn't really make sense. A sword that's merely a masterwork sword isn't something that you pass on as an heirloom...it's something you buy on the cheap from the swordsmith's reject pile. After all, he didn't even really bother to finish it. And non-masterwork weapons? They're essentially from the reject pile of the swordsmith's brand new apprentice.
Essentially, anything that isn't at minimum a +1 should be regarded as a worthless malformed piece of scrap metal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is fully intentional for it to be easy, as confirmed by the devs. Next question?
Oh, and stop confusing what's common for the PCs, and what's common for the world at large.
No they are not. Most magic items come from experts with th master craftsman feat or adepts. A PC class spell caster is a rare, highly trained expert. Not only that they work with magic items almost every day. Also, um, Golarion doe seem, basically, awash in magic items.With magical weapons as easy to create as they've become in Pathfinder (a commoner with a couple of feats can create them), the trait "Heirloom Weapon" doesn't really make sense. A sword that's merely a masterwork sword isn't something that you pass on as an heirloom...it's something you buy on the cheap from the swordsmith's reject pile. After all, he didn't even really bother to finish it. And non-masterwork weapons? They're essentially from the reject pile of the swordsmith's brand new apprentice.
Essentially, anything that isn't at minimum a +1 should be regarded as a worthless malformed piece of scrap metal.
Except the average commoner lives on 3900 gp a year, after taxes, food and lodging that does not realistically put magic weapons in the hands of commoners.
Campfire beads and continual flame torches? Sure, the occasional cure spell or plant growth casting? Of course but not the highly specialized murder tools they don't even know how to use.
|
|
The thing is, since a fairly low level commoner or expert with minimal feat investement can make +1 weapons, they shouldn't really cost as much as they do. It's essentially a comodity that can be created by anyone who puts minimal effort into it...but the "suggested price" doesn't reflect that at all.
Essentially, the crafting system is completely f---ed up. This is not new to PF...the crafting system has been f---ed up ever since they introduced the concept to the game (although I have to say that having standardized "recipes" in 3.X/PFRPG make the situation worse). Hell, the crafting system can't even handle mundane stuff without revealing just how ridiculous it is.
|
One thing I do is I ask how the character has knowledge of X item that he/she wants to make. "How exactly would you even know about a Holy Avenger?" Last time I checked, Spellcraft allowed you to learn about a magic item that you were holding not roll a Spellcraft check to see if you know what a Holy Avenger is.
|
|
i have something to say about about pregame crafting
i am perfectly fine with pregame crafting for discounts, you are essentially selling your precious feat slots for cash. and feats are also a highly limited resource. and a 50% discount is fine. items sell for 50% so crafting for 50% isn't bad. items actually do have upper limits on power level. and some martials would love the benefit of saving a great deal of money on a backup weapon or few. not every DM ignores the sunder rules. weekly william still uses them.
now for the point on the difficulty of crafting
not every item crafter is a wizard.
the reason the crafting DCs may seem 'easy' is because they weren't balancing it against wizards with maxed out intellegence who maxed out spellcraft. they were balancing it against spellcasters who aren't so intellegence focused, like clerics, druids, oracles and sorcerers. when you judge how difficult a task should be, you shouldn't balance it against the perfect individual for the task. you should balance it against other viably compatible individuals who may feel like performing the task. the item creation DCs may be easy on the wizard's end. but look at the other classes who may wish to do this. and look at the noncasters with master craftsman. if you focus on making it a challenge for the best man for the job. you are removing the ability for others to be viably effective at the task. if we balanced item creation around the optimized wizard, than other spellcasters wouldn't be viable crafters. nor would noncasters with master craftsman.
crafting may be easy for the wizard, but that is because the wizard gets the primary skill (spellcraft) as a class skill, is heavily focused on the skill's key attribute (intellegence), is encouraged to invest in the skill (spellcraft), and gets a heavy amount of skill points to invest in the skill due to his focus on the attribute that increases skill points gained (intellegence).
This is why I believe Magic Item creation should be based off of level instead of intelligence. What that does is it gives "all" classes an equal chance to create magic items. Adding their level instead of am ability score bonus or skill puts everyone on the same footing.