Caster-Martial Disparity Battleground - No Crying.


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

251 to 300 of 1,383 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

How're we doing, folks? Did we solve all the world's problems yet?


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Lab_Rat wrote:
The fighter should not specialize in one thing. He should be the specialist in all things melee.
That's sort of the argument against feat chains, in a nutshell. Personally, I prefer feats that scale with BAB; if you set the new "break points" at BAB +6/+11/+16, then only full martial characters can get the highest tier of effects.

I like that idea. I never liked the feat chains. I always felt that they required to much of my resources as a melee character just so that I could do one thing well. The worst example of a feat chain that should absolutely be a BAB increasing feat is vital strike. As 3 feats its a horrible choice but as a single feat that gets better I would take it because there are going to be times when I can only make one attack. I think the combat maneuver feats would also benefit from this. You could specialize in a couple of them and truly be the maneuver man.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Lab_Rat wrote:
The fighter should not specialize in one thing. He should be the specialist in all things melee.
That's sort of the argument against feat chains, in a nutshell. Personally, I prefer feats that scale with BAB; if you set the new "break points" at BAB +6/+11/+16, then only full martial characters can get the highest tier of effects.

Me and my friend actually managed to design a feat progression that was minimally fighter exclusive by volume with only like 1/3 of the feats having any kind of pre-req. Our goal was to give the fighter something truly unique to the fighter (fighter only feats don't work because classes like the magus get fighter only feats...) that brought the fighter up to tier 3 and changed the nature of melee combat. When you look at melee combat it is rather boring; ToB improves things a bit. However ToB still lacks dynamic in melee combat, which we hope to introduce through some rock-paper-scissors elements. It is still a work in progress though.


12 people marked this as a favorite.
Evil Lincoln wrote:
How're we doing, folks? Did we solve all the world's problems yet?

BARBARIAN SOLVE WORLD HUNGER. BARBARIAN PUNCH ALL HUNGRY PEOPLE. THEY AM STOP EXISTING.

MIDDLE EAST GONE TOO. BARBARIAN DEALS LOTS OF CHARGE DAMAGE.

AM WORKING ON DEBT CEILING, BUT STRENGTH CHECK AM NEEDING NAT 20 EVEN WITH RAGE POWER THAT GRANT +20 TO LIFT AND THROW UP. AM TAKING WHILE.

ALSO BARBARIAN AM PUNCH S&P AND GET GREAT CREDIT OF AAA BACK. AM GREAT LOOT, SELLING TO AMERICA FOR MUCH SHINEYS.


Trinam wrote:
Evil Lincoln wrote:
How're we doing, folks? Did we solve all the world's problems yet?

BARBARIAN SOLVE WORLD HUNGER. BARBARIAN PUNCH ALL HUNGRY PEOPLE. THEY AM STOP EXISTING.

MIDDLE EAST GONE TOO. BARBARIAN DEALS LOTS OF CHARGE DAMAGE.

AM WORKING ON DEBT CEILING, BUT STRENGTH CHECK AM NEEDING NAT 20 EVEN WITH RAGE POWER THAT GRANT +20 TO LIFT AND THROW UP. AM TAKING WHILE.

ALSO BARBARIAN AM PUNCH S&P AND GET GREAT CREDIT OF AAA BACK. AM GREAT LOOT, SELLING TO AMERICA FOR MUCH SHINEYS.

Finally, a fiscal strategy I can get behind.


Diego Rossi wrote:

To repeat it again. 2 feats and you can make your own magic items even if you aren't a spellcaster.

And the rules are so lenient that a guy with intelligence 7, masterwork instruments and 1 maximized skill can produce weapons, armors or miscellaneous items for which he lack 2 prerequisites (i.e 2 spells) without any risk of failure. I.e. he can take 10 and succeed at every attempt.
As you can make items 1 step at a time, giving them 1 power for each step you can make almost all of those items if you have the right craft.

Sure , you can't make melee weapons and missile weapon with the same feat, so a non spellcaster is more limited than a spellcaster, but with a judicious choice of skill and feat you can do plenty of items.

So non-caster characters can spit out magic in the form of items. It's still magic, and these faked-out magic items will never equal in strength what a true caster can do.

Off-Topic Rant on Crafting:
Personally, I think one should have to at least have a caster level to be able to craft any sort of magic item, and then be able to fake prerequisites. It seems silly that someone with no magical talent whatsoever can enchant a blade just because you add +5 to the DC, let alone making anything in the vein of rings or wondrous items. Of course, this is all my opinion and is houseruled in my games, so it's kind of moot. Also off-topic.

Diego Rossi wrote:
If what you want is total independence from any kind of magic ...well you have chosen the wrong game.

I don't expect you to have followed everything I personally have posted on this topic, so I too will reiterate: I think the status quo with casters and martial classes is fine the way it is. That I recognize a disparity does not mean I have chosen sides.

But this still goes on to further my point: regardless of the source (even if from a crafter with no caster levels), fighters will always need magic. Magic is inherent to the world; it is part of reality, it transcends reality, and it warps reality. The intrinsic need for magic to overcome damage reduction, to heal wounds, to shield one from blows that would level small villages makes wizards and their magic indispensable, and far above a fighter swinging a sharpened metal rod around.


Trinam wrote:
Evil Lincoln wrote:
How're we doing, folks? Did we solve all the world's problems yet?

BARBARIAN SOLVE WORLD HUNGER. BARBARIAN PUNCH ALL HUNGRY PEOPLE. THEY AM STOP EXISTING.

MIDDLE EAST GONE TOO. BARBARIAN DEALS LOTS OF CHARGE DAMAGE.

AM WORKING ON DEBT CEILING, BUT STRENGTH CHECK AM NEEDING NAT 20 EVEN WITH RAGE POWER THAT GRANT +20 TO LIFT AND THROW UP. AM TAKING WHILE.

ALSO BARBARIAN AM PUNCH S&P AND GET GREAT CREDIT OF AAA BACK. AM GREAT LOOT, SELLING TO AMERICA FOR MUCH SHINEYS.

This is my favorite one yet. XD

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Foghammer wrote:
** spoiler omitted **

Spoiler:
Are you against non-wizard smiths creating magic items at all, or don't like that anyone can take the feat and would rather it be a rare quality of select few master smiths?

Wizards should not make better blacksmiths than warriors who live and breathe the sword, know it, and understand it.

Scarab Sages Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games

Foghammer wrote:
Trinam wrote:
Evil Lincoln wrote:
How're we doing, folks? Did we solve all the world's problems yet?

BARBARIAN SOLVE WORLD HUNGER. BARBARIAN PUNCH ALL HUNGRY PEOPLE. THEY AM STOP EXISTING.

MIDDLE EAST GONE TOO. BARBARIAN DEALS LOTS OF CHARGE DAMAGE.

AM WORKING ON DEBT CEILING, BUT STRENGTH CHECK AM NEEDING NAT 20 EVEN WITH RAGE POWER THAT GRANT +20 TO LIFT AND THROW UP. AM TAKING WHILE.

ALSO BARBARIAN AM PUNCH S&P AND GET GREAT CREDIT OF AAA BACK. AM GREAT LOOT, SELLING TO AMERICA FOR MUCH SHINEYS.

This is my favorite one yet. XD

Mine too!


I think something hasn't been said yet and should be.

Stats are the basis for abilities. Wizards need only a single stat: Intelligence. Even on a 15 point buy, an 18 is manageable (obviously with a dump stat or two). Any given martial class will make much more use out of all of the physical stats, even if they focus on one or maybe two.

Barbarian needs Con for raging/hp, Str for melee attacks, and Dex for AC. I probably see most barbs ignore Dex the most of the three, but that means their Con just needs to be that much higher - they'll be getting hit more. Wizard? He'll take his one stat and maybe drop a few points in Con or Dex for some light survivability but is otherwise set.

The lower the point buy, the better casters are. The higher the base stats, the less of a disparity there is: a sorcerer who evades damage as much as he can will not see the difference in the extra points in Con he got to put there with his extra points as much as the fighter who's physical stats are doing more for him overall.

While the starting stats do not reflect the ending stats, it's still a baseline. All the spells, magic items, and diety-granted ability score boosts the characters will have received by high levels is working off the original scores.

Not to mention, casters will be able to afford that Headband of Vast Intellect, granting them all the bonuses they need, before the melees will be able to afford their Belt of Physical Perfection. The buff spells that boost just one stat are also lower level.

This is why I rule a 30 point buy in my games: MAD classes (and admit it: all martial are somewhat MAD) benefit more from it than casters.


Andy Ferguson wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:


Quote:
Not disputing any of that, but compared to a full fledged caster druid, I have a hard time calling a wildshap druid a "full" caster.

A druid can wildshape without being specced for it, besides natural spell. (and every druid takes that anyway)

A properly chosen, specced and geared (it amazes me that people forget to pimp theirs out) druid's animal companion is a decent melee character in its own right.

One assumes you spend most of your time as a dire-tiger, which has two claws at 2d4 and a bite at 2d6. Assuming a large form gives you a +4 to strength. So if you start with a 14 strength (you said you weren't specced for it) and it wearing a +4 strength belt, you are doing 2 claws at +16 tohit for 2d4+6 and a bite at 2d6+6. That's not so impressive. Power attack will hurt your poor to-hit chance more then it will help your damage.

You cat is better, but not by much.

You're forgetting Greater magic fang on both, and probably an amulet of mighty fist : shocking and freezing on the critter. The druid alone is meh, the druid AND FRIEND is a force to be reckoned with all day every day.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Caster: I spend one feat, i can make a magic sword, a magic shield, magic armor, AND a magic bow, using a skill i'm going to max out anyway (and for wizards, with their prime stat)

Martial: i spend TWO feats and i can make a magic sword OR a magic bow OR armor and shields using a skill that has very limited uses and has what's likely my dump stat as the associated ability. Oh, and i take a -10 penalty half the time because i don't have all the prereqs.

how is this not showing how spellcasters win again?

DC to make a magic item CL+5

If you are a non spellcaster and you have the feat your CL = your crafting skill
Int 7 = -2
Craft, class skill for everyone +3
I skill point/level = your skill is identical to your class level
Masterwork equipment +2

Your total skill is your character level -2+3+2 = +3
Take 10
Your result is your CL+13 so you can always make a item for which you are lacking 2 prerequisite.

Soo hard to do.

Why is your warrior type taking a -10, BTW? he is always speedy enchanting so he get the extra -5? Not that it matter, he will always autosucceed with a -10.
As I already explained you can put 1 enchantment at a time in almost all magic items, so you should get only a -5.

It is fun that you want to be free from the need to have spellcaster but then protest vehemently about a reasonable cost to do that.

There isn't even the need to spend skill points for the ability. You can buy a Headband of Vast Intelligence +2 with the right craft skill, wait 4 hours and voilà, you have the skill and the feat prerequisite. You even get a +1 to your dump stat modifier and the skill is automatically upgraded every level

If you later upgrade to a +4 headband you can even make items for which you lack 3 prerequisites with no risk of failure.

If your build is so feat starved that you can't spare 2 feat to satisfy your desire to be free from spellcasters take leadership and get a cohort that will only make stuff for you.

You will get all the spellcraft feats you want and the caster sidekick some other guy wanted in the thread.

If you want total independence from magic you will have to create your own setting with different rules.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Wizards should not make better blacksmiths than warriors who live and breathe the sword, know it, and understand it.

Using intelligence for the craft skills is decidedly counter intuitive, it should a different characteristic depending on the skill (smiting skills = strength, jewellery = dexterity and so on).

As usual the developers used a shortcut, using a single stat for all the different kinds of craft.


Diego you're not answering the question.

Soo hard to do.

-Whereas the wizard can make something that uses his entire WBL to access something he shouldn't have for a few levels yet.

Why is your warrior type taking a -10, BTW? he is always speedy enchanting so he get the extra -5? Not that it matter, he will always autosucceed with a -10.

-Shocking, flaming, lifestealing, ... pretty much anything but raw +s are going to tack on penalties.

As I already explained you can put 1 enchantment at a time in almost all magic items, so you should get only a -5.

-You "explained" it. You're wrong. So the point doesn't hold.

Quote:
It is fun that you want to be free from the need to have spellcaster but then protest vehemently about a reasonable cost to do that.

Two feats is not a reasonable cost for half of a magic item creation feat. I don't know if its the language barrier but you come across as rather smug here. There is a difference between acknowledging what the rules ARE and what the rules OUGHT to be.

Quote:
There isn't even the need to spend skill points for the ability. You can buy a Headband of Vast Intelligence +2 with the right craft skill, wait 4 hours and voilà, you have the skill and the feat prerequisite. You even get a +1 to your dump stat modifier and the skill is automatically upgraded every level

If your game is that magic mart just buy the sword.

Quote:
If your build is so feat starved that you can't spare 2 feat to satisfy your desire to be free from spellcasters take leadership and get a cohort that will only make stuff for you.

Most DM's ban leadership.. and for good reason.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:


Why is your warrior type taking a -10, BTW? he is always speedy enchanting so he get the extra -5? Not that it matter, he will always autosucceed with a -10.

-Shocking, flaming, lifestealing, ... pretty much anything but raw +s are going to tack on penalties.

As I already explained you can put 1 enchantment at a time in almost all magic items, so you should get only a -5.

-You "explained" it. You're wrong. So the point doesn't hold.

PRD wrote:

Adding New Abilities

Sometimes, lack of funds or time make it impossible for a magic item crafter to create the desired item from scratch. Fortunately, it is possible to enhance or build upon an existing magic item. Only time, gold, and the various prerequisites required of the new ability to be added to the magic item restrict the type of additional powers one can place.

The cost to add additional abilities to an item is the same as if the item was not magical, less the value of the original item. Thus, a +1 longsword can be made into a +2 vorpal longsword, with the cost to create it being equal to that of a +2 vorpal sword minus the cost of a +1 longsword.

1 prerequisite at a time as you are giving the item 1 power at a time.

James Jacobs wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

- What happens when you are adding new abilities to a to an already enchanted item and fail the spellcraft roll?

The rules say: "the item does not function and the materials and time are wasted". As the item was part of the materials you destroy its original capabilities or you keep them?

- lacking the prerequisited for the powers the item already has is a problem or not? i.e. if I want to add the powers of a Cloak of Resistance to a set of Wings of Flying I need to know the Fly spell or I get a +5 to DC?

- It is written somewhere that you can use an item while it is being upgraded? I have seen it taken for granted, but the rules are silent on that.

Thanks for whatever help you can give. They aren't vital questions, only thoughts that were born in another thread.

I'll answer what I can, but if it's that important to you, you should just post this question in the rules forum. There's plenty of folks on those boards who have great insight into the rules; you don't have to be employed at Paizo to have that ability.

I'd say that if you fail a spellcraft roll when adding new abilities to a magic item that the new abilities just don't "take" and that the extra money you'd invested in that new ability is wasted; the item itself is fine unless the GM is squirrelly and wants to sneak a curse in there.

If you're adding powers to an existing magic item, I'd say you only need to meet the prerequisites for the added powers.

While you're upgrading a magic item, you can't use it. It's basically "in the shop," probably with parts of it taken apart and bits of its magic unwoven or suppressed.

So, unless you have a better rule reference than mine I stick with James opinion.

BigNorseWolf wrote:


Quote:
There isn't even the need to spend skill points for the ability. You can buy a Headband of Vast Intelligence +2 with the right craft skill, wait 4 hours and voilà, you have the skill and the feat prerequisite. You even get a +1 to your dump stat modifier and the skill is automatically upgraded every level

If your game is that magic mart just buy the sword.

Jeweler 5 ranks, Master Craftsman, Craft wondrous items, do it yourself.

Find a friendly weaponsmith and make one with the needed skill for your friend that now will enchant the meele weapons of the group.

BigNorseWolf wrote:


Quote:
If your build is so feat starved that you can't spare 2 feat to satisfy your desire to be free from spellcasters take leadership and get a cohort that will only make stuff for you.

Most DM's ban leadership.. and for good reason.

Houserules. you can change everything that way.


Gilman the Dog wrote:

Me tell you what, we martial classes all form union, no more protect scrawny wizards at low levels. Next time you get menaced by house cat at level one, you on you own stupid wizard. Me laugh while you get killed by flanking goblins.

NO MORE WIZARD LIVE TO LEVEL 20 IF GILMAN AND UNION FRIENDS NO PROTECT HIM!

See, that's why you guys really should leave the thinking to others. You do that, the wizards are just going to go over and recruit some non-squishy divine full casters (battle oracles, for example) to keep them alive instead.

No, go on the adventure with the wizards. Then, after they cast their spells, backstab—I mean, Sneak Attack—'em.


see wrote:
the wizards are just going to go over and recruit some non-squishy divine full casters

ALL CASTERS AM SQUISHY. NO EXCEPTIONS.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Someone call that Heavy Armor Cleric character in here to dispute.

Also, get Darkholme as well so the three of us can have an avatar party.


Vendis wrote:

I think something hasn't been said yet and should be.

Stats are the basis for abilities. Wizards need only a single stat: Intelligence. Even on a 15 point buy, an 18 is manageable (obviously with a dump stat or two). Any given martial class will make much more use out of all of the physical stats, even if they focus on one or maybe two.

Barbarian needs Con for raging/hp, Str for melee attacks, and Dex for AC. I probably see most barbs ignore Dex the most of the three, but that means their Con just needs to be that much higher - they'll be getting hit more. Wizard? He'll take his one stat and maybe drop a few points in Con or Dex for some light survivability but is otherwise set.

The lower the point buy, the better casters are. The higher the base stats, the less of a disparity there is: a sorcerer who evades damage as much as he can will not see the difference in the extra points in Con he got to put there with his extra points as much as the fighter who's physical stats are doing more for him overall.

While the starting stats do not reflect the ending stats, it's still a baseline. All the spells, magic items, and diety-granted ability score boosts the characters will have received by high levels is working off the original scores.

Not to mention, casters will be able to afford that Headband of Vast Intellect, granting them all the bonuses they need, before the melees will be able to afford their Belt of Physical Perfection. The buff spells that boost just one stat are also lower level.

This is why I rule a 30 point buy in my games: MAD classes (and admit it: all martial are somewhat MAD) benefit more from it than casters.

This is a very interesting point.

In general, it is obvious that either casters need to be nerfed, or martials need buffs. One way to buff martials is to reduce the MADness.

1) Strength (for "finesse" builds). One of the most common complaints I see on these forums is the inability to make an optimal, flavorful finesse build, particularly for monks and rogues. The easy answer here is a DEX -> damage feat.

2) Dexterity (Reflexes). Reflexes is a redundant stat. Reflexes is nothing more than dodge, and dodge is incorporated into AC. Reflexes could be as well. Yes, I'm suggesting AC defend against some magic.

3) Constitution (HP). The HP formula needs work. An increased amount of HP at all levels would mean more survivability at low levels, and less rocket tag at high levels.

4) Wisdom (Willpower). Being required to put points into Wisdom as a martial is silly, philosophical arguments notwithstanding. Some classes, like paladins, have solutions to this. Others are particularly vulnerable. Buffing all the resistance feats to +4 would be a good start. I can't explain why they aren't already, as this would only bring them in line with the value of a feat.

Result: martials could focus on desired stats nearly as much as casters. Brute characters could ignore DEX, getting what they need from AC/HP. Finesse characters could ignore STR with DEX pulling double duty. All martials could ignore WIS, filling in the gap with Iron Will. Basically, they would all have either a STR/CON or DEX/CON build, rather than STR/DEX/CON/WIS.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Are you against non-wizard smiths creating magic items at all, or don't like that anyone can take the feat and would rather it be a rare quality of select few master smiths?

Spoiler:
Not non-wizard specifically, but any non-caster making a magic item seems dumb to me, yes.

Someone said a caster should not be a better craftsman than a warrior who lives and breathes blades. I could care less which one is making better items, it only has to do with the fact that the caster should be the only one making magic items. Bob the armorsmith (level 4 commoner) down the street shouldn't be able to craft my +3 armor for me, I don't care if the rules say it only takes him a bit longer. If Bob was a level 3 commoner, level 1 adept, then I'd be okay with it.

In the case of Leadership, I especially don't like the thought that an army of non-caster followers behind a fighter can churn out magic items in this mock war scenario we have going. Any adepts in those NPCs are casters and would make it more legit in my eyes, but then the fighter is falling back on a caster to fight a caster again. But even that feels dumb, because adepts will still have to fake prerequisites for crafting. I think that may be the part I have the most trouble with. Crafting was already screwed up beyond belief.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Foghammer wrote:


** spoiler omitted **

Spoiler:
That translates to 'only spellcasters can be magic' when I read it. Obviously, I don't approve, but what can you do?

-Fine, fine. You got me there. Could you explain however why you wouldn't want to make a more expensive sword without the minuses? IE, if the fighter can make a +3 sword without a chance of failing the wizard can make a +4 sword without a chance of failure. If level limits are a problem the fighter can make a +3 sword and the wizard can make a +3 flaming sword.

My turn...

Master Craftsman cannot be used to make both swords and jewels. Master craftsman is tied to a particular skill.

You must use the chosen skill for the check to create the item.

and craft(weapons) doesn't make jewelry.

You cannot take master craftsman twice, since it doesn't have the line special: you can take this feat multiple times. Your martial character is stuck with whatever skill they have associated with master craftsman.


Quote:
I could care less which one is making better items, it only has to do with the fact that the caster should be the only one making magic items.

After level 5 non magic items are effectively a non entity. Can you name one wizard from the genre who makes their own weapons? Usually making your own weapon is the fighting blacksmiths schtick, and there's no point in having them make the weapon if the important parts (the magic) are tacked on by someone else.

Quote:
Bob the armorsmith (level 4 commoner) down the street shouldn't be able to craft my +3 armor for me, I don't care if the rules say it only takes him a bit longer. If Bob was a level 3 commoner, level 1 adept, then I'd be okay with it.

-Even with master craftsman bob the level 4 commoner can't make magic arms or armor. He needs to be at least 5 levels, and would need to be 12th level to crank out your +3 armor. A 12th level commoner or expert is a rare if not unique entity in the game, and would likely be a secluded master living in the remote reaches to avoid hordes of adventurers beating a path to his door.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
That translates to 'only spellcasters can be magic' when I read it. Obviously, I don't approve, but what can you do?

Yes, but I am not put off by your disagreement with me. That whole tirade was merely my opinion, and I am aware that not everyone will agree (obviously, since rules were chaned from 3.5 to PF to allow that sort of thing).

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Stuff.

I didn't sit down and calculate any of those numbers out. I made it all up off the top of my head. Whether Bob had to be 5th or 20th level doesn't matter to me, I don't think Bob should be doing anything magical unless he has magic inherent to his class (or race, I guess I should say).

I don't know why the magic in an item has to come from the one who made the dang thing anyway. Everyone wants to argue like it has to be a single craftsman - why can't a blacksmith make a badass masterwork sword and the caster make it magical? Why can't the blacksmith make some really fancy horseshoes and the caster make them horseshoes of speed? They specialize in different things, so let them perform their special tasks separately.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Foghammer wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Are you against non-wizard smiths creating magic items at all, or don't like that anyone can take the feat and would rather it be a rare quality of select few master smiths?

yes

The best magic item crafter in the tales that started our genre were the dwarfs and most of them were incapable to cast spells.


Quote:
I didn't sit down and calculate any of those numbers out. I made it all up off the top of my head. Whether Bob had to be 5th or 20th level doesn't matter to me, I don't think Bob should be doing anything magical unless he has magic inherent to his class (or race, I guess I should say).

Well what about dwarves? They don't like magic, but they're supposed to make the coolest magic items, Including thor's hammer and that blasted rope that held the fenris wolf.

Quote:
I don't know why the magic in an item has to come from the one who made the dang thing anyway. Everyone wants to argue like it has to be a single craftsman - why can't a blacksmith make a badass masterwork sword and the caster make it magical?

Because badass and merely masterwork is a contradiction. An equal partnership between blacksmith and wizard would be one thing , but the smith makes a lousy 300 gp masterwork item with a +1 to hit that's superseded by the wizards enhancement bonus. The blacksmith makes it enchantable, the wizard makes it lop people's heads off in one shot. Who's making the sword badass there?


BigNorseWolf is right on the money. Master Craftsman is a master joke. At first I was totally psyched about it, but then I realized what a trap it was. You're basically blowing - at minimum - 2 feats, and cannot take full advantage of one of those feats (the item creation feat). You likewise cannot even take an item creation feat until 7th level as a non-caster, because you get Master Craftsman at 5th, so your next feat comes at 7th.

Adepts are more likely to be the master craftsmen because they already have a caster level, and can easily qualify for stuff like craft wondrous and craft magic arms and armor at 3rd and 5th level, with a +10 Spellcraft check without dipping into Skill Focus or anything beyond a set of masterwork tools. Due to the adept's ability to ignore requirements as well, he can make stuff that requires spells not on his spell list, or skills he doesn't have, and so forth.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:


-Fine, fine. You got me there. Could you explain however why you wouldn't want to make a more expensive sword without the minuses? IE, if the fighter can make a +3 sword without a chance of failing the wizard can make a +4 sword without a chance of failure. If level limits are a problem the fighter can make a +3 sword and the wizard can make a +3 flaming sword.

Sigh. Have you ever looked the caster level requirements for the powers?

BTW, the set the difficulty of the check.

I am not joking when I say that they are stupidly easy.

DC spoiler:

Edit: As Big Nose pointed out, the CL reduction from this FAQ work only for Woundros items, not weapon and armours

FAQ wrote:

What is the caster level required to create a pearl of power?

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.

Text corrected.

A int 7 non spellcaster with a maximized skill will have a total skill with masterwork gear and class bonus of his level+3
To see what he can make you need to subtract 13 from the DC. That is the minimum skill he need to autosucced (note that he need a skill as high as the CL or he will have a further +5 to DC, but a spellcaster will have the same problem)

+X of the weapon, CL requirement that can't be waived x3 the value of X
A guy with a maximized skill in Craft (weapons) is as good as a pure spellcaster of his level.

Anarchic, Axionatic, holy, unholy: CL 7, DC 12, DC 17 for a non spellcaster (and a wizard will be lacking the prerequisite as much as a warrior type, so DC 17 for him too).

Bane: suggested CL 8, so DC 13 standard, 18 for a non spellcaster

Brilliant Energy: CL 16, DC 26 for a non spellcaster,

Dancing: CL 15, this is a hard one with a DC of 25 for a warrior type.

Flaming: CL 10, DC15/20

and so on.

a few more "hard" items:

Ghost touch: CL 9 DC 14/19
Keen: CL 10 DC 15/20
Ki Focus: it must be a monk , CL 8, DC 18 for all non monks
Speed: CL 7, DC12/17

Vorpal: CL 18, 2 spell required.1. For a total DC of 33 for a non spell caster. A non spellcaster with intelligence 7 can make it at level 20.
Level 18 with a headband +4 to intelligence.

BigNorseWolf wrote:


My turn...

Master Craftsman cannot be used to make both swords and jewels. Master craftsman is tied to a particular skill.

You must use the chosen skill for the check to create the item.

and craft(weapons) doesn't make jewelry.

You cannot take master craftsman twice, since it doesn't have the line special: you can take this feat multiple times. Your martial character is stuck with whatever skill they have associated with master craftsman.

I see you have missed something:

Diego wrote:

Jeweler 5 ranks, Master Craftsman, Craft wondrous items, do it yourself.

Find a friendly weaponsmith and make one with the needed skill for your friend that now will enchant the meele weapons of the group.

One warrior type for the wondrous items, one for the weapons.

In reality you don't even need the weaponsmith, "simulating" the skill you are missing is a +5 to the check.
Making a Headband of Vast Intelligence with a skill you miss is one of the situations where you will have a -10 for 2 missing prerequisites, but our 7 int guy will still make it taking 10.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I have never heard of a smith able to craft magic weapons that had to use actual spells to do it. He just made them.


Diego Rossi wrote:
Foghammer wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Are you against non-wizard smiths creating magic items at all, or don't like that anyone can take the feat and would rather it be a rare quality of select few master smiths?

yes

The best magic item crafter in the tales that started our genre were the dwarfs and most of them were incapable to cast spells.

What tales are those? I might like to read them.


Quote:

Sigh. Have you ever looked the caster level requirements for the powers?

BTW, the set the difficulty of the check.

I'm pretty sure you're not supposed to drop the caster levels like that.

** spoiler omitted **

BigNorseWolf wrote:


My turn...

Master Craftsman cannot be used to make both swords and jewels. Master craftsman is tied to a

...
Quote:
I see you have missed something:

Not missed so much as can't figure out what you're saying.

Quote:
One warrior type for the wondrous items, one for the weapons.

So now the group should spend 4 feats to the wizards 2? That's not really making your case.

Quote:
In reality you don't even need the weaponsmith, "simulating" the skill you are missing is a +5 to the check.

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here. If you're saying that the weaponsmith can make jewelry at -5 the answer is hell no. master craftsman specifically says you must use the chosen skill, and there's no rule for using one craft for another even at penalties


The real problem comes from when author's design scenarios in Pathfinder Society.

How can you have good design when at level 3, some classes (Summoners, Magus, 2H Fighters, Zen Archers,etc) are outputting 15 (often 20) damage per round when everyone else is doing 5-10? How can you challenge these optimized groups and not kill groups with weaker classes (Bards, Sorcs). In a home game, you just change stuff on the fly to challenge the party. In PFS, you can't (or shouldn't) do that.

At places like Gen Con it gets even worse, do you have idea how many sorc / wizard builds that used Magic Missile and other DPS spells? Sure, casters that knew what they were doing were incredibly effective, but usually it went like this: I take my turn, crit 40 damage, they take theirs, 5 damage (or 2 damage if going from a wand because they're out of spells, which happenned frequently).

I would say at most tables, I was doing 75% of the work, at least (out of 6 players). Sometimes bosses would die and other players wouldn't even get to perform an action, especially if there were rogues or ninjas in the group.

Quite honestly, if you had a party of 4 summoners, you'd be ok (on both the healing and DPS fronts), if you had a party of 4 wizards I'm wondering if you'd make it past the two encounters in some scenarios.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ashiel wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Foghammer wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Are you against non-wizard smiths creating magic items at all, or don't like that anyone can take the feat and would rather it be a rare quality of select few master smiths?

yes

The best magic item crafter in the tales that started our genre were the dwarfs and most of them were incapable to cast spells.

What tales are those? I might like to read them.

Prose Edda

The dwarves created Mjölnir (Thor hammer); Odin's spear Gungnir; Freyr's foldable boat Skíðblaðnir; Draupnir, Odin's ring, having duplicates falling from itself every ninth night.

or you can look Wayland the Smith.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:

Sigh. Have you ever looked the caster level requirements for the powers?

BTW, the set the difficulty of the check.

I'm pretty sure you're not supposed to drop the caster levels like that.

** spoiler omitted **

FAQ wrote:


What is the caster level required to create a pearl of power?

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.
...
—Sean K Reynolds, 08/18/10 Back to Top

You know? You are right, it work "only" for wondrous items.

The CL is a requirement for weapons.
Still most of the DC (barring vorpal, brillant energy and dancing in the core rules) have a CL of 12 or less, so a DC of 22 for a non spellcaster.
Our int 7 guy can beat that DC at level 9 taking 10 (he would still have to add 5 to the DC if is skill level is lower than the CL of the item).
A wizard will have a better skill total, thanks to his int bonus, but wouldn't benefit from masterwork items as he would be using spellcraft.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:


My turn...

Master Craftsman cannot be used to make both swords and jewels. Master craftsman is tied to a

...
Quote:
I see you have missed something:

Not missed so much as can't figure out what you're saying.

Quote:
One warrior type for the wondrous items, one for the weapons.
So now the group should spend 4 feats to the wizards 2? That's not really making your case.

Really? 2 guys can work at 2 different projects, the spellcaster only at one.

And 2 feats from 2 guys don't cost more to the single character than 2 feats for one guy.

BigNorseWolf wrote:


Quote:
In reality you don't even need the weaponsmith, "simulating" the skill you are missing is a +5 to the check.

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here. If you're saying that the weaponsmith can make jewelry at -5 the answer is hell no. master craftsman specifically says you must use the chosen skill, and there's no rule for using one craft for another even at penalties

I am saying that you could, by rules, get the help of a guy with the weaponsmith skill to help when you make the item. That way you avoid the +5 DC. But, as it is a wondrous item, there is no Cl requirement and the CL is set by the prerequisite spell: fox cunning, so it CL 3, +5 for the missing spell and +5 for the missing skill.

Total DC 13. Our guy can make it at level 3 whitout help.


Diego Rossi wrote:

Prose Edda

The dwarves created Mjölnir (Thor hammer); Odin's spear Gungnir; Freyr's foldable boat Skíðblaðnir; Draupnir, Odin's ring, having duplicates falling from itself every ninth night.

or you can look Wayland the Smith.

So basically the magical creatures from Norse Mythology. They are shown to be magical creatures specifically because they can forge weapons such as the mjolnir, and not the hands of normal mortals. No one in norse mythology uses the kind of magic described in D&D, because D&D is a mish-mash of different fantasy stories and mythologies. You are taking these traditions out of context and acting as though the same principles would apply with you mix these traditions in with other traditions.

Wikipedia, Citations from Dictionary of Northern Mythology wrote:
While Eitri used magic in a forge that was extremely hot, Brokkr worked the bellows so that the fire would not cool down nor get too hot for the magic.

There are also dwarfs in Norse Mythology said to hold up the sky. There should probably be a feat for that. :P


Ashiel wrote:
There are also dwarfs in Norse Mythology said to hold up the sky. There should probably be a feat for that. :P

AM RAGE POWER. AM CALLED STRENGTH SURGE.


Diego Rossi wrote:
Foghammer wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Are you against non-wizard smiths creating magic items at all, or don't like that anyone can take the feat and would rather it be a rare quality of select few master smiths?

yes

The best magic item crafter in the tales that started our genre were the dwarfs and most of them were incapable to cast spells.

What level were those dwarves? How do you know none of them were casters? Because they are not part of this game. If memory serves me, those dwarves were also synonymous with elves.

And I've never known dwarves to make the best magic arms and armor. The best masterwork stuff, probably from rare materials. Elves specialized in magic in every game I've played, and dwarves were the martially inclined race.

But you guys should really get off of my opinion, because I've already recognized that it isn't popular and don't care; it's how I'm going to run it. You won't convince me that it makes sense for non-casters to make magic stuff. And we're way off topic. Is it that you've all decided the original discussion is a lost cause?

I'm flattered, really, that I was able to derail this thread so easily, but I'd rather get back to the original topic.


Ashiel wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

Prose Edda

The dwarves created Mjölnir (Thor hammer); Odin's spear Gungnir; Freyr's foldable boat Skíðblaðnir; Draupnir, Odin's ring, having duplicates falling from itself every ninth night.

or you can look Wayland the Smith.

So basically the magical creatures from Norse Mythology. They are shown to be magical creatures specifically because they can forge weapons such as the mjolnir, and not the hands of normal mortals. No one in norse mythology uses the kind of magic described in D&D, because D&D is a mish-mash of different fantasy stories and mythologies. You are taking these traditions out of context and acting as though the same principles would apply with you mix these traditions in with other traditions.

Wikipedia, Citations from Dictionary of Northern Mythology wrote:
While Eitri used magic in a forge that was extremely hot, Brokkr worked the bellows so that the fire would not cool down nor get too hot for the magic.
There are also dwarfs in Norse Mythology said to hold up the sky. There should probably be a feat for that. :P

+1 for finding the words to say what I wanted to (but I just gave up). XD

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I just want to play games with Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser where they both are able to contribute usefully at all levels.

Is that really so much to ask?


Really? 2 guys can work at 2 different projects, the spellcaster only at one.

And 2 feats from 2 guys don't cost more to the single character than 2 feats for one guy.

-It still costs your group twice as many feats, and you still can't do as much as the wizard. If the wizard takes craft arms and armor + wondrous item thats 2 feats for your group. If you have 2 fighter types take master craftsman(twice), craft arms and armor and craft wondrous then you STILL can't make magic armor.

In short, you're gimping your group for no good reason.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:


In short, you're gimping your group for no good reason.

In short, "I want all the spellcaster options, while keeping all of the warrior options".


Kolokotroni wrote:

I, the Wizard scoff at the barbarians poor grammar. I feel his need to make saving throws in the first place reflects a lack of precise planning. As a high level God Wizard, I do believe if you have to roll dice at all then you are doing something decidedly wrong.

You see, my foes are unable to see me (improved invisibilty), unable to touch me (hooray for flight), unable to resist me (gotta love ranged touch spells), and by the time they know they are fighting me, they already lost.

he finished his boast just before a strange gurgling noise began to froth from his mouth. A man stepped out of the shadows behind him, muttering, "well, third clone down" and wiped the smeer of blood and poison from his blade.


Foghammer wrote:


I'm flattered, really, that I was able to derail this thread so easily, but I'd rather get back to the original topic.

It's not that hard to smurf a thread. Really.


If you were making blacksmiths to make a magical sword master craftsman takes 2 feats and you get craft magical arms and armor as a feat later and you can only use one skill. So wizards are still better at it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:


In short, you're gimping your group for no good reason.
In short, "I want all the spellcaster options, while keeping all of the warrior options".

That's not what he's saying at all, and you know it. Anyone who can read knows it. He's saying that it's really not a good option for the warrior types. It just isn't a good option period. It's kind of a trap or fake option. It's there to look like warriors have the option of making sweet magic items, but it's just a lie. The best you can do is learn to make a certain type of magic items, and it costs you twice the feats than normal, and you get less out of it.

Craft Arms & Armor? Pick weapons, bows, or armor.
Craft Rings? Better have Jewelrycrafting.
Craft Rods? Weaponsmithing can work.
Craft Scrolls? Calligraphy or Scribe but technically you can't do this at all without being a spellcaster.
Craft Wands? Same as scrolls.
Craft Potions? You could have used Craft Alchemy (even says so in the item creation rules) but a recent Errata/FAQ ruling says you can't make potions using Alchemy unless you're a spellcaster/alchemist.
Craft Wondrous Item? You have to have the appropriate craft skill, which means you need armor for things like helms of glory, jewelrycrafting for amulets, cobbling for boots, maybe leatherworking for belts, and so forth. If your GM is lenient, tailoring could probably cover most body-slot items, including cloaks, belts, robes, shirts, etc.

The kicker? You only get to choose 1. That's right. Master Artisan can be taken all of once, which means you can only craft one of these types of items, and in many cases, only a subset of those items.

For the record, Spellcraft can be used for all of them. That's why adepts are the best craftsmen among NPC classes. They can qualify for everything and have spellcraft as a class skill. Since Craft is also a class skill, they can even make their own masterwork items if need be, but they probably just buy them from the local expert.

BigNorseWolf didn't say he wanted it to be like this, he said it is like this. Arguing with him, lying about his position, and strawmanning isn't doing anyone any favors. If you want to house rule it, go ahead, but past that point it is no longer subject to this discussion as anything more than a passing commentary.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ashiel wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:


In short, you're gimping your group for no good reason.
In short, "I want all the spellcaster options, while keeping all of the warrior options".

That's not what he's saying at all, and you know it. Anyone who can read knows it. He's saying that it's really not a good option for the warrior types. It just isn't a good option period. It's kind of a trap or fake option. It's there to look like warriors have the option of making sweet magic items, but it's just a lie. The best you can do is learn to make a certain type of magic items, and it costs you twice the feats than normal, and you get less out of it.

Craft Arms & Armor? Pick weapons, bows, or armor.
Craft Rings? Better have Jewelrycrafting.
Craft Rods? Weaponsmithing can work.
Craft Scrolls? Calligraphy or Scribe but technically you can't do this at all without being a spellcaster.
Craft Wands? Same as scrolls.
Craft Potions? You could have used Craft Alchemy (even says so in the item creation rules) but a recent Errata/FAQ ruling says you can't make potions using Alchemy unless you're a spellcaster/alchemist.
Craft Wondrous Item? You have to have the appropriate craft skill, which means you need armor for things like helms of glory, jewelrycrafting for amulets, cobbling for boots, maybe leatherworking for belts, and so forth. If your GM is lenient, tailoring could probably cover most body-slot items, including cloaks, belts, robes, shirts, etc.

The kicker? You only get to choose 1. That's right. Master Artisan can be taken all of once, which means you can only craft one of these types of items, and in many cases, only a subset of those items.

For the record, Spellcraft can be used for all of them. That's why adepts are the best craftsmen among NPC classes. They can qualify for everything and have spellcraft as a class skill. Since Craft is also a class skill, they can even make their own masterwork items if need be, but they probably just buy them from the local expert.

...

He don't want to depend on spellcasters. Fine.

He don't want to use magic marts. Fine.
He say most masters don't allow characters to take leadership to get a spellcaster working for the warrior. Fine.
He don't want to pay a feat tax to be capable to craft the magic items he need himself. Fine.

So he refuse all options but he don't want to depend from spellcasters for what they (the spellcasters) do and want to keep all the perks of warrior types.

How would you define that?

"That's right. Master Artisan can be taken all of once,"
Care to show the ruling saying that? The feat apply to only 1 craft, but at a minimum you can take it twice, once to get craft magic arm and armor linked to 1 craft, and once to get Craft wondrous items linked to another craft.

It would not be efficient, but possible.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Diego Rossi wrote:

So he refuse all options but he don't want to depend from spellcasters for what they do and want to keep all the perks of warrior types.

How would you define that?

Desiring a balanced character.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
A Man In Black wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

So he refuse all options but he don't want to depend from spellcasters for what they do and want to keep all the perks of warrior types.

How would you define that?

Desiring a balanced character.

Very funny, so a character capable of doing all that a spellcaster do while keeping the full martial power is balanced.

I suppose you only play gestalt characters.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Diego Rossi wrote:
Very funny, so a character capable of doing all that a spellcaster do while keeping the full martial power is balanced.

You've presumed that desiring to do one thing that a spellcaster can means that someone wants to be able to all the things a spellcaster can, in the same character. Nonsense, making magic items is only part of what a spellcaster can do, and nobody here is claiming that everyone should get all of those things.

You've also presumed that "spellcasting" and "martial power" are somehow equal. This is incredibly untrue.

You've also forgotten that PF core has two (arguably three) classes that blend "martial power" and spellcasting, and that supplements have added at least three — arguably four — more. (Cleric, druid, arguably bard. Summoner, magus, arguably oracle, arguably inquisitor.)

So this is kind of a crap argument, eh?

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Becoming a wizard is for cowards who would prefer to cower behind cover playing with owlbear feces, making silly hand gestures, and chanting nonsense while a battle is raging. They can occasionaly be useful in non-combat situations, but they're often so frail and cowardly that they complain that they need to sleep after the group has killed only a few hundred orcs. They also insist on having someone who CAN be useful in battle hang back to protect them, should any enemies manage to sneak up behind the group. In doing so, they rob a warrior of his potential glory.

Wizards...pah! *spits*

251 to 300 of 1,383 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Caster-Martial Disparity Battleground - No Crying. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.