@Robsie
I love how you've redefined 'productive.'
Since item crafting produces magic items, time spent crafting is, prima facie, productive.
Just semantic nitpicking...
To those saying "anyone can craft so magic items are common":
The lowest required level for a commoner/expert/whatever to begin crafting is level 7. That requires 35 000 experience on the medium track. That's equal to killing 30 hydras. Is that something "anyone does" in your games?
|
Well, why bother with a dice roll then? Just assume they make the items, because the success rate is not far from guaranteed.Tell that to the item crafting PC in the CC game I'm in - he's an 8 Int cleric. He only gets one skill point a level, so his spellcraft isn't even maxed. Someone wanted him to put a CL8 ability into a weapon, but the spell needed was not a cleric spell, so DC18. He has a +4 Spellcraft. Hardly guaranteed.
Not everyone is optimized for everything, and optimization can break much more than just item creation. I don't think you can judge the system through the lens of ruthless optimization. I think it works fine for players not trying to abuse it.
The DCs can get pretty ridiculous for spontaneous casters. Try making a belt of physical perfection without knowing any of the spell prerequisites - DC36!
Oh, and for all the people who think that the CL should be a hard requirement - you really think a caster needs to be 17th level to make a level 1 pearl of power? Really?
He clearly has optimized his cleric for something very different than being a crafter. I fail to see why he has taken the feat at this point.
to get only 1 skill point/level he is:- not human
- not taking skills as his preferred class option
- int 8 or lower (as specified in your post)
If he has generated his character using the purchase point system the point he has gained lowering his intelligence have gone somewhere so feeling short-changed because that will reduce his abilities as a crafter seem odd.
Even with all is optimization in another direction, if instead of making a shock or frost weapons (the only CL8 weapon abilities in the CRB that don't have a clerical spell as a prerequisite AFAIK) he had made a flaming or bane weapon he would still have been fine, with a DC of 13.
If I am heavily optimizing my character to be a meele bruiser I have little reason to protest if my missile attack damage is less than stellar.
|
|
Where the ability to bypass the Item Caster Level and/or the spell prereq really gets stupid is for these two items:Luck Blade
Candle of InvocationOh I forgot to mention another thing that gets really really stupid according to how Paizo "clarified" the rules ... any item crafted by any caster level 10 or above, other than maybe wands and staves, is going to be crafted at "Item Crafter Level 20" so it effectively can't be dispelled. The cost for crafting a bag of holding at ICL3 and ICL 20 is the same, so if you're a mage with Craft Wonderous Item, and you have a bag of holding, you can upgrade it's ICL for free. And when taking 10 on the check, any mage worth a crap is going to be able to Take10 his way to ICL20 items when he's like level 9.
You are taking for granted something that isn't allowed in the rules anywhere:
the ability to make items at a CL above your ownif you can find any ruel saying that you can make a item at a Cl above your own you are right, but it seem you are simply stretching teh meaning of "The DC to create a magic item increases by +5 for each prerequisite the caster does not meet" and ruling that CL is a prerequisite you can circumvent taking a +5 to the DC, but the relevant rule say "While item creation costs are handled in detail below, note that normally the two primary factors are the caster level of the creator and the level of the spell or spells put into the item. A creator can create an item at a lower caster level than her own, but never lower than the minimum level needed to cast the needed spell. Using metamagic feats, a caster can place spells in items at a higher level than normal.". Nowhere it say that you can make a item at a caster level above yours (Note. it say that you can put in a spell at a higher level through the use of metamagic, i.e. you can put in a heightened spell).
Why would you need 50 scrolls? You don't cast a spell 50 times to make a wand. The only place 50 stuff comes in is for spells with materials (diamond dust for example). If you could make a wish wand it would take 50 measures of diamond dust worth 25k gp each. But, you don't have to cast wish 50 times. When the scroll was created is when that spells material components were consumed. So, you'd just need a scroll for each day you'd be working on the wand.
To create a wand "The creator must have prepared the spell to be stored (or must know the spell, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) and must provide any focuses the spell requires. Fifty of each needed material component are required (one for each charge). Material components are consumed when work begins, but focuses are not. A focus used in creating a wand can be reused. [b]The act of working on the wand triggers the prepared spell, making it unavailable for casting during each day devoted to the wand's creation. (That is, that spell slot is expended from the caster's currently prepared spells, just as if it had been cast.)[b]", so the spell should come from the mind of someone, not simply from a magic item.
It is a specific limit in making potions, scrolls, wands and staffs.
To create a wand "The creator must have prepared the spell to be stored (or must know the spell, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) and must provide any focuses the spell requires. Fifty of each needed material component are required (one for each charge). Material components are consumed when work begins, but focuses are not. A focus used in creating a wand can be reused. [b]The act of working on the wand triggers the prepared spell, making it unavailable for casting during each day devoted to the wand's creation. (That is, that spell slot is expended from the caster's currently prepared spells, just as if it had been cast.)[b]", so the spell should come from the mind of someone, not simply from a magic item.
It is a specific limit in making potions, scrolls, wands and staffs.
You still wouldn't need 50 scrolls. You produce an item at a rate of 1k gp per day. If the wand cost is 5k gp then that's 5 days so only 5 castings of a particular spell. Yes, you need enough materials for 50 castings for the wand itself in addition to what it takes you to normally cast the spell but you don't actually cast the spell 50 times.
I don't know of any level 5s with 25k gp worth of diamond dust, beej67.
Last man standing after a TPW does.
Where the ability to bypass the Item Caster Level and/or the spell prereq really gets stupid is for these two items:Luck Blade
Candle of InvocationOh I forgot to mention another thing that gets really really stupid according to how Paizo "clarified" the rules ... any item crafted by any caster level 10 or above, other than maybe wands and staves, is going to be crafted at "Item Crafter Level 20" so it effectively can't be dispelled. The cost for crafting a bag of holding at ICL3 and ICL 20 is the same, so if you're a mage with Craft Wonderous Item, and you have a bag of holding, you can upgrade it's ICL for free. And when taking 10 on the check, any mage worth a crap is going to be able to Take10 his way to ICL20 items when he's like level 9.
You are taking for granted something that isn't allowed in the rules anywhere:
the ability to make items at a CL above your own
Read the thread I linked above. It's stated explicitly by the Paizo writers that you can do that, and that there's no reason not to. It just takes a plus five on your spell craft check.
: To create a wand "The creator must have prepared the spell to be stored (or must know the spell, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) and must provide any focuses the spell requires.
That might be true for wands, but anything big and powerful you just bypass it with a spell craft check, according to RAW. You don't even need 1 scroll, much less 50 scrolls.
Let the astute magic item crafter be advised, creating an item to buff spellcraft would be wise. ;)
|
|
You still wouldn't need 50 scrolls. You produce an item at a rate of 1k gp per day. If the wand cost is 5k gp then that's 5 days so only 5 castings of a particular spell. Yes, you need enough materials for 50 castings for the wand itself in addition to what it takes you to normally cast the spell but you don't actually cast the spell 50 times.To create a wand "The creator must have prepared the spell to be stored (or must know the spell, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) and must provide any focuses the spell requires. Fifty of each needed material component are required (one for each charge). Material components are consumed when work begins, but focuses are not. A focus used in creating a wand can be reused. The act of working on the wand triggers the prepared spell, making it unavailable for casting during each day devoted to the wand's creation. (That is, that spell slot is expended from the caster's currently prepared spells, just as if it had been cast.)", so the spell should come from the mind of someone, not simply from a magic item.
It is a specific limit in making potions, scrolls, wands and staffs.
Evidently I wasn't clear, you can't use scrolls to make potions, scrolls, wands and staffs. For those item someone must have the spell as a prepared spells. It is a further requirement that supersede the general rule allowing the sue of magic items to supplement the spell.
Read the thread I linked above. It's stated explicitly by the Paizo writers that you can do that, and that there's no reason not to. It just takes a plus five on your spell craft check.
For example, a 3rd-level wizard with Craft Wondrous Item can create a 1st-level pearl, with a minimum caster level of 1. He can set the caster level to whatever he wants (assuming he can meet the crafting DC), though the pearl's caster level has no effect on its powers (other than its ability to resist dispel magic). If he wants to make a 2nd-level pearl, the caster level has to be at least 3, as wizards can't cast 2nd-level spells until they reach character level 3. He can even try to make a 3rd-level pearl, though the minimum caster level is 5, and he adds +5 to the DC because he doesn't meet the "able to cast 3rd-level spells" requirement.
—Sean K Reynolds, 08/18/10
You are right, as much as it pain me, SKR example say exactly that.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
I don't know of any level 5s with 25k gp worth of diamond dust, beej67.Last man standing after a TPW does.
Lone Survivor: Hey, guys? I'm short on diamond dust, do you mind if I sell off some of your equipment?
The Dead: Yeah man, do what you gotta do.
LS: Alright! I got the 25k I needed!
TD: 25k!? But you only need 15k to raise us all, why are you selling so much of our stuff?
LS: Raise you? Ha, screw that, I'm making a luck blade!
TD: ....
LS: Score! Item crafting is so broken!
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
[He clearly has optimized his cleric for something very different than being a crafter. I fail to see why he has taken the feat at this point.
to get only 1 skill point/level he is:
- not human
- not taking skills as his preferred class option
- int 8 or lower (as specified in your post)If he has generated his character using the purchase point system the point he has gained lowering his intelligence have gone somewhere so feeling short-changed because that will reduce his abilities as a crafter seem odd.
I wouldn't say he feels short-changed. He is very experienced and has built exactly what he wanted. He can make magic weapons and armor, but has trouble with anything not entirely pure +s. The point I was trying to make is that the system works fine if you are a "casual" item crafter.
Put another way, yes, optimized crafters can make whatever they want. But, if they are optimized for crafting, shouldn't they be good at it? If you make it so tough that dedicated item crafters have problems, then "hobbyist" crafters like this cleric can't make anything worth having.
And yes, we had to make some hard choices during character creation as we had 15 point buy for this AP.
You are right, as much as it pain me, SKR example say exactly that.
I take no pleasure in being right about this. It's horribly dumb. Greatest failure of Pathfinder in my eyes is that the crafting system actually got worse than 3.5.
We house rule it to be like you think it is, honestly. Otherwise everyone in the party would carry a Gate Candle with their potions. Why not.
|
You are right, as much as it pain me, SKR example say exactly that.I take no pleasure in being right about this. It's horribly dumb. Greatest failure of Pathfinder in my eyes is that the crafting system actually got worse than 3.5.
We house rule it to be like you think it is, honestly. Otherwise everyone in the party would carry a Gate Candle with their potions. Why not.
I started a thread about bringing back XP cost but actually make is scale correctly and I got hell for it and the thread closed for it.
I said the same thing and the designers acted like their magic item rules were a gift from heaven.
I started a thread about bringing back XP cost but actually make is scale correctly and I got hell for it and the thread closed for it.
I said the same thing and the designers acted like their magic item rules were a gift from heaven.
I don't understand why there should be an xp cost associated with magic item crafting. Is it to simulate investing part of yourself into an item? I would think the fact that magic item creation consumes your daily castings of particular spells would fulfill that role. For balance reasons? The only thing that I could think of that would fairly represent this as in-game mechanic is to amend the city item alotment tables to include information on how likely certain resources are to be found in a place. So, for example, a d% roll to figure out how much adamantine is in a thorp versus a village. But, xp? I can't take that seriously.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are right, as much as it pain me, SKR example say exactly that.I take no pleasure in being right about this. It's horribly dumb. Greatest failure of Pathfinder in my eyes is that the crafting system actually got worse than 3.5.
We house rule it to be like you think it is, honestly. Otherwise everyone in the party would carry a Gate Candle with their potions. Why not.
I started a thread about bringing back XP cost but actually make is scale correctly and I got hell for it and the thread closed for it.
I said the same thing and the designers acted like their magic item rules were a gift from heaven.
The problem with Pathfinder and a XP cost is that Pathfinders didn't have rules allow the recovery of a XP gap between characters. If the crafter were to spend XP to produce the items they would begin to lag further and further behind the other PC.
Where the ability to bypass the Item Caster Level and/or the spell prereq really gets stupid is for these two items:Luck Blade
Candle of InvocationOh I forgot to mention another thing that gets really really stupid according to how Paizo "clarified" the rules ... any item crafted by any caster level 10 or above, other than maybe wands and staves, is going to be crafted at "Item Crafter Level 20" so it effectively can't be dispelled. The cost for crafting a bag of holding at ICL3 and ICL 20 is the same, so if you're a mage with Craft Wonderous Item, and you have a bag of holding, you can upgrade it's ICL for free. And when taking 10 on the check, any mage worth a crap is going to be able to Take10 his way to ICL20 items when he's like level 9.
This is NOT true, according to this old thread of mine.
Caster levels for items cannot be changed, as a general rule, unless they're things like wands or scrolls or other spell trigger or spell completion items.
You could theoretically increase the caster level for a wondrous item or other magic item, but that'd need GM approval and would increase the base cost of the item as appropriate.
Simply rolling well on your craft check won't let you end-run around these rules. Caster level is not determined by your check's result.
Not only is it a house rule requiring GM approval, it would increase the cost of the item (dramatically in all liklihood) and not be at all "free."
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
I started a thread about bringing back XP cost but actually make is scale correctly and I got hell for it and the thread closed for it.
I said the same thing and the designers acted like their magic item rules were a gift from heaven.
That's patently untrue, and you should be ashamed for making that claim.
I just went back through that thread, and at no point does any designer "act like the magic item rules are a gift from heaven". You got several polite responses from three different developers explaining the multiple reasons the xp costs were removed from the game (plus one snarky response from Sean K Reynolds after you basically accused him of not understanding the crafting system, which I thought you deserved).
You're free to disagree with their reasons, and to advocate the xp costs be added back in, but don't mischaracterize the designer's remarks, and don't try to play this up like you're some kind of victim. You're not.
|
|
I started a thread about bringing back XP cost but actually make is scale correctly and I got hell for it and the thread closed for it.
I said the same thing and the designers acted like their magic item rules were a gift from heaven.
That's patently untrue, and you should be ashamed for making that claim.
I just went back through that thread, and at no point does any designer "act like the magic item rules are a gift from heaven". You got several polite responses from three different developers explaining the multiple reasons the xp costs were removed from the game (plus one snarky response from Sean K Reynolds after you basically accused him of not understanding the crafting system, which I thought you deserved).
You're free to disagree with their reasons, and to advocate the xp costs be added back in, but don't mischaracterize the designer's remarks, and don't try to play this up like you're some kind of victim. You're not.
I'm not ashamed of anything, in the least. All of their reasons didn't make sense and I disagreed. They may have given the reason why they did it but that doesn't make it a good one.
|
|
You are right, as much as it pain me, SKR example say exactly that.I take no pleasure in being right about this. It's horribly dumb. Greatest failure of Pathfinder in my eyes is that the crafting system actually got worse than 3.5.
We house rule it to be like you think it is, honestly. Otherwise everyone in the party would carry a Gate Candle with their potions. Why not.
I started a thread about bringing back XP cost but actually make is scale correctly and I got hell for it and the thread closed for it.
I said the same thing and the designers acted like their magic item rules were a gift from heaven.
The problem with Pathfinder and a XP cost is that Pathfinders didn't have rules allow the recovery of a XP gap between characters. If the crafter were to spend XP to produce the items they would begin to lag further and further behind the other PC.
It has a section on ad hoc XP so I don't understand the problem really. There is a way for the PC to catch up and in it's in the hands of the DM where it should be.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally the XP cost always seemed stupid to me -- in earlier editions you got XP for crafting magic items.
The thought that the supposedly hard process of crafting an item would make you less adept at things is dumb.
|
|
Personally the XP cost always seemed stupid to me -- in earlier editions you got XP for crafting magic items.
The thought that the supposedly hard process of crafting an item would make you less adept at things is dumb.
It might help your argument if it actually had some fact to it. You never could lose enough XP to lose a level so you never became worse at something. Until you hit that XP number that brought you to the next level, you never gained anything either. All it did was take you longer to get to the next level. None of your mechanical abilities ever changed with XP cost, it just took you longer to gather yourself and get to the next level. XP cost was a perfect way to deal with it, all that needs to be done is the math corrected and on top of that the XP cost "did" make sense.
It might help your argument if it actually had some fact to it. You never could lose enough XP to lose a level so you never became worse at something. Until you hit that XP number that brought you to the next level, you never gained anything either. All it did was take you longer to get to the next level. None of your mechanical abilities ever changed with XP cost, it just took you longer to gather yourself and get to the next level. XP cost was a perfect way to deal with it, all that needs to be done is the math corrected and on top of that the XP cost "did" make sense.Personally the XP cost always seemed stupid to me -- in earlier editions you got XP for crafting magic items.
The thought that the supposedly hard process of crafting an item would make you less adept at things is dumb.
Taking longer is the same as making you less adept when other people are leveling up faster. Also if we are giving out Ad Hoc XP to make up for the fact experience is being spent on magic items then now does having the cost in the first place make sense?
|
|
I'm talking about more expensive items. The power level of your party isn't going to drastically change because of a 7k item. I don't expect my campaign to be based off of novels because that would be boring. If you're investing feats and skills just to craft items below 10k you're effectively nerfing yourself. My party doesn't believe in drastic amounts of down time because of the fact that we could be doing something productive. If your DM is giving you months at a time to craft a single item more power to you. However I play in campaigns that consists of constent action because that's what my party enjoys. We might say in town for a couple of weeks but usually during that time we are searching for information to achieve our goals.
How are you nerfing yourself by generating magic items at all? Taking time to make items IS something productive, or why bother IC at all? It takes far less than a month to make most magic items, and really, instant action? Item creation takes about as long as saying "Ok, make your IC roll and mark off x # of days." It's not taking more than ten minutes of valued game time (Less if you just do it via email when the session's not going). The ease at selling items for 1/2 gp value, (because there are bound to be items no one really cares about) makes it easy to buy anything they PC's want. And if it takes a little while for building the cash, what does it matter? The items would be taking up space and seeing no use either way. Not to mention, a more difficult chance to make items can convey a real sense of value to the wizard who successfully made the item, or the other emotional extreme where the money goes away and the process fails. Both are more enjoyable than 'roll anything but a 2...".
|
|
Where the ability to bypass the Item Caster Level and/or the spell prereq really gets stupid is for these two items:Luck Blade
Candle of InvocationOh I forgot to mention another thing that gets really really stupid according to how Paizo "clarified" the rules ... any item crafted by any caster level 10 or above, other than maybe wands and staves, is going to be crafted at "Item Crafter Level 20" so it effectively can't be dispelled. The cost for crafting a bag of holding at ICL3 and ICL 20 is the same, so if you're a mage with Craft Wonderous Item, and you have a bag of holding, you can upgrade it's ICL for free. And when taking 10 on the check, any mage worth a crap is going to be able to Take10 his way to ICL20 items when he's like level 9.
This is NOT true, according to this old thread of mine.
Not only is it a house rule requiring GM approval, it would increase the cost of the item (dramatically in all liklihood) and not be at all "free."Caster levels for items cannot be changed, as a general rule, unless they're things like wands or scrolls or other spell trigger or spell completion items.
You could theoretically increase the caster level for a wondrous item or other magic item, but that'd need GM approval and would increase the base cost of the item as appropriate.
Simply rolling well on your craft check won't let you end-run around these rules. Caster level is not determined by your check's result.
As much as I respect JJ opinions (especially as he is a old school GM like me in a lot of things), his job isn't giving the FAQ unless they are related to to the world of Golarion.
His replies about Pharasma are canon, his replies about the Core rulebook are the opinion of a experienced GM.As I pointed out here there are plenty of items whose price is not affected by CL.
The price of all the items in this list are not affected by the CL at which the item is made:
Ability bonus (enhancement) - Bonus squared x 1,000 gp
Armor bonus (enhancement) - Bonus squared x 1,000 gp
Bonus spell - Spell level squared x 1,000 gp
AC bonus (deflection) - Bonus squared x 2,000 gp
AC bonus (other) - Bonus squared x 2,500 gp
Natural armor bonus (enhancement) - Bonus squared x 2,000 gp
Save bonus (resistance) - Bonus squared x 1,000 gp
Save bonus (other)1 - Bonus squared x 2,000 gp
Skill bonus (competence) - Bonus squared x 100 gp
Spell resistance - 10,000 gp per point over SR 12; SR 13 minimum
Weapon bonus (enhancement) - Bonus squared x 2,000 gp
To create magic items, spellcasters use special feats which allow them to invest time and money in an item's creation. At the end of this process, the spellcaster must make a single skill check (usually Spellcraft, but sometimes another skill) to finish the item. If an item type has multiple possible skills, you choose which skill to make the check with. The DC to create a magic item is 5 + the caster level for the item. Failing this check means that the item does not function and the materials and time are wasted. Failing this check by 5 or more results in a cursed item (see Cursed Items for more information).
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 potions, spell-trigger, or spell-completion magic items without meeting their spell prerequisites.
While item creation costs are handled in detail below, note that normally the two primary factors are the caster level of the creator and the level of the spell or spells put into the item. A creator can create an item at a lower caster level than her own, but never lower than the minimum level needed to cast the needed spell. Using metamagic feats, a caster can place spells in items at a higher level than normal.
The basic rule is that you make an item at your caster level, there is a specific rule that allow you to make it at a lower caster level if you wish (but never lower than the minimum caster level to cast the spell [and there is the little problem of "in which class" today, I am looking at you, summoner]).
Then we have SKR (a developer whose job is giving the FAQ about the Core rulebook):
Pearl of Power: What is the caster level required to create this item?
Though the listed Caster Level for a pearl of power is 17th, that caster level is not part of the Requirements listing for that item. Therefore, the only caster level requirement for a pearl of power is the character has to be able to cast spells of the desired level.
However, it makes sense that the minimum caster level of the pearl is the minimum caster level necessary to cast spells of that level--it would be strange for a 2nd-level pearl to be CL 1st.
For example, a 3rd-level wizard with Craft Wondrous Item can create a 1st-level pearl, with a minimum caster level of 1. He can set the caster level to whatever he wants (assuming he can meet the crafting DC), though the pearl's caster level has no effect on its powers (other than its ability to resist dispel magic). If he wants to make a 2nd-level pearl, the caster level has to be at least 3, as wizards can't cast 2nd-level spells until they reach character level 3. He can even try to make a 3rd-level pearl, though the minimum caster level is 5, and he adds +5 to the DC because he doesn't meet the "able to cast 3rd-level spells" requirement.
—Sean K Reynolds, 08/18/10
JJ reply is perfect from my point of view, but RAW and FAQ say otherwise.
Just to add, your idea was to:
MAKING SUPER CL'd ITEMS!
Say, for example, I have a wondrous item (We will call it Item X) that has a starting caster level of 5. That means it has a base DC of 10 to create (if I meet all the prerequisites). This item is key to my character's build and so I don't want it getting dispelled or otherwise destroyed/disabled. So I decide to use my item creation feat to "upgrade" the item's caster level.
Since I am a 15th-level wizard with a Spellcraft modifier of +37 (for example), I can automatically reach a DC of 47 by taking 10. Therefore, I can upgrade my item's cast level to 37 (47 - the base DC = 37).
upgrade he Cl of existing items, not making new ones. it s a vastly different thing.
The question influence the answer.
I used to have a problem with the ease of magic item creation in Pathfinder. Maybe it was coming from groups that were wary of the XP cost in 3rd edition (which I believe was pointed out somewhere to be negligible in the long run, but whatever), but it was fairly rare to have one of my players want to craft something. Once Pathfinder came around and the XP cost was dropped I had a player get very enthusiastic about playing a crafter.
I resisted, feeling that the influx of magic items would unbalance the game. I kept the pace of the story up so as not to allow him downtime to craft. I raised the DCs of the checks, and made the requirements immutable (i.e. if you weren't a cleric you couldn't make cleric items). Ultimately this led to the player getting irritated, to the point that he purposefully retired his wizard because he felt I was going out of my way to "gimp" his character. Which, let's be honest, I was.
I took his complaints to heart, and since then I've been running craft RAW and letting the party plenty of downtime between adventures. Sure, it has led to a few overpowered PCs since I'm not as strict with WBL as I should be.
But here's the thing: most magic items that the PCs are interested in acquiring (weapons, stat-increasing items, etc) provide a fixed numerical bonus. Since I have my players provide me with digital copies of their character sheets on Obsidian Portal, I have an exact idea of what they are capable of. I can then use those numbers to craft encounters tailored to their approximate power level rather than their APL. Most importantly, I can run the encounter ahead of time on my own before the game. If it's too easy, I can beef it up. Too difficult? Tone it down. And of course I can adjust the encounter on the fly while the PCs are actually playing it, by raising or lowering HP of the enemies or fudging rolls.
I think the most important thing to recognize, as a GM, is that the power to create an appropriate encounter is ENTIRELY in your hands. Feel the PCs are too powerful? Give them more powerful enemies! The current CR system is a great guideline for encounter design, but it should only be viewed as that: a guideline. It is the responsibility of the GM to create interesting challenges for the PCs, and provide them with a game they want to keep playing.
|
|
I used to have a problem with the ease of magic item creation in Pathfinder. Maybe it was coming from groups that were wary of the XP cost in 3rd edition (which I believe was pointed out somewhere to be negligible in the long run, but whatever), but it was fairly rare to have one of my players want to craft something. Once Pathfinder came around and the XP cost was dropped I had a player get very enthusiastic about playing a crafter.
I resisted, feeling that the influx of magic items would unbalance the game. I kept the pace of the story up so as not to allow him downtime to craft. I raised the DCs of the checks, and made the requirements immutable (i.e. if you weren't a cleric you couldn't make cleric items). Ultimately this led to the player getting irritated, to the point that he purposefully retired his wizard because he felt I was going out of my way to "gimp" his character. Which, let's be honest, I was.
I took his complaints to heart, and since then I've been running craft RAW and letting the party plenty of downtime between adventures. Sure, it has led to a few overpowered PCs since I'm not as strict with WBL as I should be.
But here's the thing: most magic items that the PCs are interested in acquiring (weapons, stat-increasing items, etc) provide a fixed numerical bonus. Since I have my players provide me with digital copies of their character sheets on Obsidian Portal, I have an exact idea of what they are capable of. I can then use those numbers to craft encounters tailored to their approximate power level rather than their APL. Most importantly, I can run the encounter ahead of time on my own before the game. If it's too easy, I can beef it up. Too difficult? Tone it down. And of course I can adjust the encounter on the fly while the PCs are actually playing it, by raising or lowering HP of the enemies or fudging rolls.
I think the most important thing to recognize, as a GM, is that the power to create an appropriate encounter is ENTIRELY in your hands. Feel the PCs are too powerful?...
Your case is a perfect example of as to why magic item creation should be handled differently. Leaving it in the hands of the DM is not always the best route because, like you pointed out, it seems like the DM is going out of his way to control the flow so players start to feel picked on and you said that when you allowed it you had PC's that were overpowered.
The process should be difficult but the problem is people have gotten so used to magic items that they don't feel special anymore so people feel like the item needs to be able to slay a god, for instance, if they are going to go through this long and difficult process. That is the downside to having items be very common.
I agree, Ian.
I've been going over the GM Guide recently and everything I've read, literally, supports giving into the PCs wishes, though within certain limits, so they can feel ownership and connection to their character and the world. It's your job as GM to adjust the world to suit. You're completely within your rights to impose appropriate repercussions. However, if the PC chooses to craft for a couple months instead of saving a nation then so be it. Though, the repercussions of such could be drastic and you should discuss these things with players so they at least have an inkling about the impact of their choices. The point is though to not "just say no" to a PC wanting to do something. In the vast majority of cases you should seek to support their actions.
shallowsoul: To me it didn't feel like extra work. Even without these sorts of magical items, I still would be putting in the same amount of effort into encounter design. I just view it as part of the job and the joy of being a GM. Job, because it takes work. Joy, because I find it very fun putting in that kind of work.
And I don't even mind them having all those magical items. To me, it helps enforce the high fantasy setting I find appealing. In fact, giving over the reigns of item creation largely to my players has lessened the worry about me generating cool stuff for the group. They have their own Q, and he relishes the role.
Now of course this isn't to everyone's taste. Folks are going to want to run a game that fits best with their sensibilities. I just hope to illustrate that some GMs can have fun with the crafting system as is. The only investment it requires is time and planning, something that every GM should consider an essential part of their job.
|
|
shallowsoul: To me it didn't feel like extra work. Even without these sorts of magical items, I still would be putting in the same amount of effort into encounter design. I just view it as part of the job and the joy of being a GM. Job, because it takes work. Joy, because I find it very fun putting in that kind of work.
And I don't even mind them having all those magical items. To me, it helps enforce the high fantasy setting I find appealing. In fact, giving over the reigns of item creation largely to my players has lessened the worry about me generating cool stuff for the group. They have their own Q, and he relishes the role.
Now of course this isn't to everyone's taste. Folks are going to want to run a game that fits best with their sensibilities. I just hope to illustrate that some GMs can have fun with the crafting system as is. The only investment it requires is time and planning, something that every GM should consider an essential part of their job.
The thing I have found with running games is the fact that usually when you have 1 or two people that are optimized the rest of the party needs to be as well because what it takes to challenge those players can out right kill the others if you aren't careful.
Dude, what is with all the hate towards magic items, are you really under the impression that they completely break the game? I see so many GMs on here posting about "do you actually let your players buy magic items?" (cause OMG NO WAY)and "it's too easy to make magic items", "they'd all get stolen if they had em in a shop"(yea or the shop would incinerate you on the spot cause apparently they can make amazing magical items), magic items are part of what evens out the classes as well as all around fun, thank gosh I am not, and do not have to deal with such in my games.
|
|
Dude, what is with all the hate towards magic items, are you really under the impression that they completely break the game? I see so many GMs on here posting about "do you actually let your players buy magic items?" (cause OMG NO WAY)and "it's too easy to make magic items", "they'd all get stolen if they had em in a shop"(yea or the shop would incinerate you on the spot cause apparently they can make amazing magical items), magic items are part of what evens out the classes as well as all around fun, thank gosh I am not, and do not have to deal with such in my games.
Tell you what? Go back and read through this thread and a few others and you will get some of your answers.
When you control items to a point your players start to feel like they are being picked on. If you implement rules that do this then the players won't feel like their DM is just trying to pick on them.
It's not any close to being as black and white as you think.
The thing I have found with running games is the fact that usually when you have 1 or two people that are optimized the rest of the party needs to be as well because what it takes to challenge those players can out right kill the others if you aren't careful.
True, that does take a bit of special attention. In the event that that occurs (and it has popped up from time to time in my games) I try to tailor one or two of the threats specifically for the optimized players, while providing the less powerful PCs their own threats to overcome.
To draw an example from popular culture, it's like the climactic fight in The 13th Warrior: Buliwyf squares off against the leader of the Wendol, while the rest of the party faces the horde.
If a couple people are ahead ("optimized" or gear heavy) of others, why not treat them as 1 or 2 levels higher than they are and just let the APL mechanic take over? Things are slightly harder for the less ahead members and a tad easy for the "higher" ones and the lesser players will catch up while the greater ones won't advance as fast. This should help things level out again. Maybe put in an item here and there specifically for the "behind" characters to help them catch up in these more difficult fights would help them feel special as well.
If a couple people are ahead ("optimized" or gear heavy) of others, why not treat them as 1 or 2 levels higher than they are and just let the APL mechanic take over? Things are slightly harder for the less ahead members and a tad easy for the "higher" ones and the lesser players will catch up while the greater ones won't advance as fast. This should help things level out again. Maybe put in an item here and there specifically for the "behind" characters to help them catch up in these more difficult fights would help them feel special as well.
A fine option as well.
Caster levels for items cannot be changed, as a general rule, unless they're things like wands or scrolls or other spell trigger or spell completion items.
You could theoretically increase the caster level for a wondrous item or other magic item, but that'd need GM approval and would increase the base cost of the item as appropriate.
Simply rolling well on your craft check won't let you end-run around these rules. Caster level is not determined by your check's result.
That's not what Scott Reynolds said in the other thread, linked above, nor what he said in the FAQ. In fact he says the exact opposite in the thread, and says there's no reason NOT to upgrade your items to higher CLs as you go up in level/spellcraft.
I'm not saying it's not dumb. I'm just saying it is what it is.
I'm talking about more expensive items. The power level of your party isn't going to drastically change because of a 7k item. I don't expect my campaign to be based off of novels because that would be boring. If you're investing feats and skills just to craft items below 10k you're effectively nerfing yourself. My party doesn't believe in drastic amounts of down time because of the fact that we could be doing something productive. If your DM is giving you months at a time to craft a single item more power to you. However I play in campaigns that consists of constent action because that's what my party enjoys. We might say in town for a couple of weeks but usually during that time we are searching for information to achieve our goals.How are you nerfing yourself by generating magic items at all? Taking time to make items IS something productive, or why bother IC at all? It takes far less than a month to make most magic items, and really, instant action? Item creation takes about as long as saying "Ok, make your IC roll and mark off x # of days." It's not taking more than ten minutes of valued game time (Less if you just do it via email when the session's not going). The ease at selling items for 1/2 gp value, (because there are bound to be items no one really cares about) makes it easy to buy anything they PC's want. And if it takes a little while for building the cash, what does it matter? The items would be taking up space and seeing no use either way. Not to mention, a more difficult chance to make items can convey a real sense of value to the wizard who successfully made the item, or the other emotional extreme where the money goes away and the process fails. Both are more enjoyable than 'roll anything but a 2...".
Perhaps your DM allows you to just obtain the materials by going down to a market. However my DM doesn't do that at all. Honest to tell you it's probably a good investment if your dm has a static world in which nothing happens when you're crafting items. However to me that doesn't make any sense. I'm not saying crafting items is hard if you're left alone. I'm saying it's not worth it because of the fact that the world doesn't stop when you're crafting items. That's why I feel as if it can be kept in line if not made useless.
That's not what Scott Reynolds said in the other thread, linked above, nor what he said in the FAQ. In fact he says the exact opposite in the thread, and says there's no reason NOT to upgrade your items to higher CLs as you go up in level/spellcraft.
I'm not saying it's not dumb. I'm just saying it is what it is.
Who the heck is Scott?
Have there been any rules to make artifacts, say a Staff of the Magi?
Have there been any rules to make artifacts, say a Staff of the Magi?
Since part of the definition of "artifacts" is that they are beyond the ability of crafters to make, no.
Brainfart. Sean Reynolds. "Scott Reynolds" is a guy I used to game with, lol.
That's not what Scott Reynolds said in the other thread, linked above, nor what he said in the FAQ. In fact he says the exact opposite in the thread, and says there's no reason NOT to upgrade your items to higher CLs as you go up in level/spellcraft.
I'm not saying it's not dumb. I'm just saying it is what it is.
It depends on what item it is. For a magic sword, there's no reason not to pump up the caster level as much as possible, in order to give the item better saves and resistance to dispel magic. The cost of the sword is completely non-related to caster level: it's just bonus squared x2000 gp (plus the cost of a masterwork sword). The same goes for a pearl of power.
But if you want to make, say, an amulet of proof against detection and location with a higher caster level than 8th, you're also going to need to pay a proportionally higher cost, because the caster level is actually figured into how the item works (the DC 19 mentioned in the item description is 11+the caster level of 8, as described in the nondetection spell). Unless of course you interpret the item as having a DC of 19 no matter what the caster level is.
All correct. Ravingdork's quote says you can't do it, Sean Reynolds says you can and there's no reason not to if the item's price is not related to the CL.
Seems to me that making caster level an integral part of the cost of all items would be the start of a fix on this. Seriously, a +1 Sword at CL20 and a +1 Sword at CL5 should be differently priced, no?
==Aelryinth
Isn't James Jacobs in a higher position then Sean and thus his rulings take precedent or at least carry more weight?
In any case, we have at least made it clear that the game developers, as a group, have not made up their minds on the matter.
Isn't James Jacobs in a higher position then Sean and thus his rulings take precedent or at least carry more weight?
In any case, we have at least made it clear that the game developers, as a group, have not made up their minds on the matter.
What's clear is the crafting rules are all monkeyed up and need to be scrapped for Pathfinder 2.0. The fact that many of the current published rules were from an early draft and never intended to make it into the published document exacerbates the problem.