I've made an official ruling for my own games based on the FAQ. I told the players I'm not happy with the ruling, but given the ruling, I'm allowing up to 10% WBL increase per crafting feat taken. Plus an additional 10% for actual crafting crafting.
All the 'excess' wealth has to come from the actual crafting feats, or crafting itself. That at least gives the martial guy who puts enough ranks into crafting armor to craft MW mithral armor a discount on his armor and shield in order to kind of make up for the disparity.
This really benefits wizards, honestly, given that they start with a free crafting feat.
So, with this rule and the fact that you can create any magic item in Pathfinder without knowing the required spells, is there any reason not to do the same as Paizo and simply ban Item Creation?
I'm going to try a limitation on it first, as posted above. If I see it unbalancing my games or causing friction in the groups, then I'll just ban them.
However, in your argument you hand waved away the part where SKR said that the GM can put a limit (he even throws out a number of 40%). Of course he's not going to be able to tell you what that limit is because it's all campaign dependent. Part of that is going to simply be if you are running the Slow, Medium, of Fast XP track. Paizo can't tell us everything to do with the game. Instead, as GMs, it's our responsibility to figure out what works best for us.The ruling is only bad if you look at one aspect. If you look at it in its entirety, it is the official stance. I still disagree with it, but I also don't see it as bad because it leaves room for GM involvement. The guidelines allow for variance. So it is consistent with the CRB as well.
I didn't hand wave it. I addressed it. I said that rule 0 does not automatically keep a bad rule from being a bad rule.
I, also, noted that his "40%" appears NOWHERE in his FAQ entry.
As for whether he could tell us what the limits are, he could have given guidelines in the FAQ.
Whether it is the official stance has nothing to do with whether it is a bad rule.
You should read it again then:
It counts as the item's Cost, not the Price. This comes into play in two ways.
If you're equipping a higher-level PC, you have to count crafted items at their Cost. Otherwise the character isn't getting any benefit for having the feat. Of course, the GM is free to set limits in equipping the character, such as "no more than 40% of your wealth can be used for armor" (instead of the "balanced approach" described on page 400 where the PC should spend no more than 25% on armor).
If you're looking at the party's overall wealth by level, you have to count crafted items at their Cost. Otherwise, if you counted crafted items at their Price, the crafting character would look like she had more wealth than appropriate for her level, and the GM would have to to bring this closer to the target gear value by reducing future treasure for that character, which means eventually that character has the same gear value as a non-crafting character--in effect neutralizing any advantage of having that feat at all.
I didn't look it up before I had posted the 40% number he mentioned but I also didn't claim that crafting could net you 40% increase either. He did throw out that number as something the GM could do instead of the more balanced approach.
Many rules rely on the GM using Rule 0. It's part of being a GM.
1) How fast do you sink if you fail a swim check and are carrying a heavy load?
2) Can you see a mountain miles away in the desert during the day?
3) Can you see a torch-light miles away in the desert at night?
4) Do trained animals require different tricks for different languages (in other words, if you want to teach rover to sit in Dwarven and Common, is it one trick or two?)
These all require the GM to make a decision that is not covered by the rules. It's no big deal.
In order for the ruling to be a bad one, it would have to run counter to what is there. His FAQ does not. It clarifies it, according to how Paizo interprets it. I disagree with how the conclusion was made, but that's because of how I distribute wealth in my games. I also don't have to follow the FAQ entry at all. It will have zero bearing on my games and my players will still have as much fun as before because they all agreed, long before this, that crafting shouldn't increase your WBL.
My mileage has varied.
It doesn't matter HOW a 2000g sword got into his gear, whether through crafting, through purchase, or through looting from a monster. All that matters is his overall wealth total, and counting a 2000g sword as only 1000g throws that off.
Except, as has been clarified, that is not the case. It does matter if the character has Craft Magic Arms and Armor, as that character only counts the weapon as 1000gp if he can have crafted it. He has an effective extra 1000gp to spend elsewhere at the cost of having paid a feat.
This is clearly as intended per the FAQ.
And the final determination of whether an item is crafted or not lies with the GM so no player can "just say" they crafted all their gear.
I stand corrected - just found that FAQ entry. Still seems weird to me, since effectively doubling WBL by "pre-crafting" seems more than worth the price of one feat.
Again, the intent is not to allowed doubled wealth via crafting. Even SKR said that was 'doing it wrong'. The intent is simply that crafting should be a wealth advantage over non-crafting.
This, like any character choice, requires GM oversight to remain balanced. The same as any number of other fully legal character options, such as RAGELANCEPOUNCE barbarians, Summoners and Synthesists, Sohei Archers, or Beastmorph Vivisectionists, or even just base Wizards; there are plenty of ways to break the game if the GM isn't willing to step in and set limits.
Again, the intent is not to allowed doubled wealth via crafting. Even SKR said that was 'doing it wrong'. The intent is simply that crafting should be a wealth advantage over non-crafting.
Except that his comment on it being 'wrong' was in a forum post, not in the FAQ itself.
As it stands, nothing in the FAQ limits it at all. The only limit inherent in the FAQ is, if you get 128K gold, you can craft only 256K* worth of items at most.
*Unless of course, you craft 1/3rd of the cost for Adamantine/Mithral, since you can craft for 1/3rd mundane items.
Actually, it does. It confuses "cost of production" with "wealth".
Um, what do you think crafting let's you do? Produce items. What's it cost to produce items? The "cost of production" as you put it. This is how the craft rules are written in plain language. It's not some "new rule." It's been around at least since 2nd print, which is the version I have, which includes the rules that crafting costs only half the base cost of an item to make that item.
To answer your question about a crafter giving a crafted item to someone else then yes that other person would treat it as the full market value of the item. It would be no different than if that other character found the item in a dungeon. Crafting does require more work. Like Sean said, either the GM puts in a bit more work or the crafting character isn't really getting the benefit of crafting.
I didn't look it up before I had posted the 40% number he mentioned but I also didn't claim that crafting could net you 40% increase either.Let's look at that 40%. How much would it cost to have a magic item replicate Improved Init? I'm guesstimating about 22,000 (this is not the half cost using the ludicrous new craft rule). I figure it as 32,000 for a +8 belt * 2 for being slotless is the max cost to get +8 Dex. But, +4 to Init is only a very small part (not even a third of the benefit) of what +8 Dex is, so I reduce that to about 22,000.
40% over the WBL for a 10th level character gives the character more than 22,000. In other words, the return on investment is greater if the character spent his feat on crafting rather than on Improved Init (keep in mind that Improved Init is widely regarded as one of the more powerful feats in the game). At 11th level, the return on investment is greater if the craft feat is taken rather than the Improved Init feat. Every level thereafter, the return on investment is better and better and better for the craft feat rather than the Improved Init feat.
And for a 20th level character it's rather minor. You chose 10th level but since WBL covers 19 levels, it's not really fair to arbitrarily choose level 10. What about a +2 sword? It's about the same as Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Focus, and Weapon Specialization. That's three feats for a total of 4,000 gold. Or what about being able to cast a 1st-level spell 2/day? If we look on the Intelligent Items table, 3/day is 1,200 gold so let's make it 8,000 gold. So we've got a 10th level feat (Extra Talent for a rogue who uses it for Major Magic) being equal to 8,000 gold. Or the Dark blue Rhomboid Ioun Stone which grants Alertness for 10,000 gold. Not all feats are equal and we can't just compare their "prices" to magic items which are subject to different rules, such as sunder, anti-magic, theft, etc.
As for that 40%, what SKR was saying there was that you could allow someone to have 40% of their wealth in armor instead of the 25% suggested in the book.
Also, in addition to promoting the Christmas tree effect and further unbalancing the characters, this ludicrous ruling also raises the question "if I build something, it costs as only half the value it actually is (this is called 'new math'), but if I give that item to someone else in my party, does its actual value suddenly magically increase to its real value? What about if my party member then gives that item back to me, does its value then magically decrease again? Should I keep track of where all the gear I create is so that I know whether that wand of fireballs I just picked up from that ogre is one that I made myself?"
Personally, I don't have any issues with the Christmas Tree effect. Never have, I don't know why so many other GMs have a problem with it. That's a whole different issue.
The problem you bring up with the value of the item changing is something that we brought up before. According to this ruling, the value of the item does change, based on who created it and who owns it (not simply who is carrying it).
In order for the ruling to be a bad one, it would have to run counter to what is there. His FAQ does not.Actually, it does. It confuses "cost of production" with "wealth".
There was never a definition of "wealth" to begin with so it can't be counter to anything. While I agree with you on the now higher level of complexity of tracking gear, I don't think it's nearly as bad as you are claiming simply because it will have no bearing on my game at all. What I thought was a proper reading of the rule has now become a house rule and I'm fine with that. Nothing changes for me other than how I discuss things on the boards.
Also, given the permissive nature of the ruling and how crafting is written anyway, I'd go so far to say that crafting is probably outlawed in PFS for honesty reasons rather than because they think it's mechanically broken. There's no way a GM can *know* which player's items are crafted or not since players can leave one table and go to another freely so it's a potential avenue of exploit that dishonest players could utilize.
You're right Khrysaor except crafting let's make a magical item at HALF its base cost. I went through the same numbers. A +8 ability mod is 64k but only costs 32k to create since that's half the cost.
And for a 20th level character it's rather minor. You chose 10th level but since WBL covers 19 levels, it's not really fair to arbitrarily choose level 10. What about a +2 sword? It's about the same as Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Focus, and Weapon Specialization. That's three feats for a total of 4,000 gold.
Bob, a couple things to consider;
First, its not a +2 sword versus no sword at all, its a +2 sword versus a +1 sword and as much wealth again spent elsewhere. The non-crafter still has something to account for his portion of the wealth.
Second, you can't compare a +2 weapon to those three feats anyway; they're not exclusive. You can have both the feats and the weapon. And whats more, the non-crafter is likely to have a feat on the crafter, and will eventually also have the weapon. its simply a matter of having such a weapon later, at which point he also has a feat.
Third, and this comes from the Second point... eventually, items stop improving. Weapons only get so good. Eventually, the crafter and the non-crafter will both have the weapons they need or want, at which point... the non-crafter also has his extra feats. This is true as levelling too, as the crafter will be limited by resources and more importantly time, as well as factors like caps on how high you can push enhancement bonuses on weapons and such.
Yes, the crafting rules are all about the cost of production. Now, quote where the crafting rules have anything to do with wealth.
They just inherently do. You get items for half the cost if you put the time investment into the item. Give two people sacks of 20k gp with one being a crafter and the other not. The crafter can acquire a potential of 40k gp worth of items for that gold whereas the non-crafter can only gain a maximum of the gold he has, 20k gp. As I've said previously, it makes zero sense why my guy can't swing his hammer on an anvil just because some counter that is invisible to him has reached a certain limit. The way to deny a crafter the ability to craft, if he has gp, is to limit either time to craft our the ability to acquire materials.
I selected my comparison based on
a.) Comparing ONE feat to another ONE feat
b.) selecting a feat for comparison that is widely considered one of the more powerful feats (Improved Init)
c.) Selecting level 10 which is right in the middle of the 20 levels
I made an effort to not stack the deck, but rather to make a reasonable comparison (based on those three points).Now, tell me, what led you to believe that the comparison you made was the most reasonable one? It looks to me like you were trying to stack the deck. Tell me why you don't think you were.
Feats are not even remotely meant to be equal or balanced. This has been said by developers before. Comparing any two feats together is like comparing apples to oranges. What's awesome in one situation and character build sucks in another. Comparing a crafting feat to something else just doesn't add up because it's not meant to.
Ioun stones are not good as a basis of price comparison for ANY reason (not just the one being discussed in this thread) because they are easily taken away from the user (grasp vs. AC 24). The fact that they are so easily removed leads to them being seriously under priced.
Yet, you can put one in a wayfinder and still gain it's benefits without the vulnerability of it being snatched out of the air. Those are only 500 gp as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A wizard generally needs mostly utility items. He can, for Craft Wondrous Item, generally kit himself out entirely from magical items (Bracers, Robes, headbands, belts, boots, cloaks, etc) and make a rather powerful wizard with just that one feat, and perfectly satisfy the rules. Or at least come very close. He might choose to buy a staff, given how much he's saving on everything else, but that's still a lot of resources he's starting with over the guy who's a fighter (you might want to actually read the entire thread SKR, all this was gone over 15 pages ago). And really, a wizard or sorcerer doesn't need a weapon beyond masterwork, it's not his job to get into melee. Again, that pesky clause about his class not needing it.
And I think for a class that doesn't actually use weapons, it's fair to say "your offensive magic items are weapons for this purpose." And for one that doesn't use items, it's fair to say "your defensive magic items are armor for this purpose." Thus, a wand of fireball counts as a weapon, an amulet of natural armor and bracers of armor count as armor.
Your example is also skewed. The wizard will not be making extra scrolls for WBL when starting, he'll be making Wondrous Items, Staves, & Wands. Things that contribute to his effectiveness in combat all the time.
Wizard 5, WBL chart says he should have 10,500 gp. Even if you are dumb and let him craft 21,000 gp worth of items,
1) that takes 21 days. Are you really gonna let him sit and craft for 21 days?2) He could only craft a staff of charming or a staff of fire, neither of which is something he can recharge because he doesn't have access to the higher-level spell slots needed to recharge it. So he's paid a lot of money for an item he can use 10 times and hopefully start recharging by the time he hits level 7. And that's assuming you let him spend ALL his wealth on this item.
3) He could craft a wand of fireballs with 50 charges and still have about 5,000 gp of wealth left over. He can fireball all the livelong day... with a DC of 14. Woo.
SKR didn't design Pathfinder. Jason Buhlmahn did.
Actually, Jason is lead designer at Paizo, but that doesn't mean nobody elseat Paizo designed, gave feedback on, or suggested any of the rules in the Core Rulebook. And PF is based on D&D 3e, which was designed by Monte, Skip, Jonathan, and many other people at Wizards of the Coast, of which I am one.
SKR gave us such fan favorite additions as the much beloved "Vow of Poverty"
... which Jason agrees with. *shrug*
Wizard 5, WBL chart says he should have 10,500 gp. Even if you are dumb and let him craft 21,000 gp worth of items...
Wait. What?
You just ruled that, "If you're equipping a higher-level PC, you have to count crafted items at their Cost. " Now it is dumb when someones does that?
So OK, you can get more then your WBL, but the GM needs to set limits on what you can craft, vs what you are forced to buy at retail? How does that answer the question that started this horror show of a thread?
Honestly the text of the FAQ seems to push very hard for being able to double your WBL by crafting. Nothing in it hints at limiting anything but what percentage goes to armor vs other items. Since most of the best items a that theoretical wizard is going to craft are things like a headband of intellect, or winged boots or some other item that seems completely allowed by the "Balanced approach", it seems any limit is based on that house rule.
If you didn't think doubling up WBL was OK, you might want to reread the text of the FAQ, because it sure seems to allow it by my reading, and apparently several other posters.
EDIT: I feel that all the FAQ needs to satisfy everyone is to include a note that, "The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game assumes that all PCs of equivalent level have roughly equal amounts of treasure and magic items. " and that crafting is not intended to disrupt that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And I think for a class that doesn't actually use weapons, it's fair to say "your offensive magic items are weapons for this purpose." And for one that doesn't use items, it's fair to say "your defensive magic items are armor for this purpose." Thus, a wand of fireball counts as a weapon, an amulet of natural armor and bracers of armor count as armor.
The point being, that even breaking it down like that, he can double his wealth by just taking 25% for offensive, 25% for defensive items, and then 50% for everything else, all with CWI.
Your example is also skewed. The wizard will not be making extra scrolls for WBL when starting, he'll be making Wondrous Items, Staves, & Wands. Things that contribute to his effectiveness in combat all the time.Wizard 5, WBL chart says he should have 10,500 gp. Even if you are dumb and let him craft 21,000 gp worth of items,
1) that takes 21 days. Are you really gonna let him sit and craft for 21 days?
No, you did. And you didn't require it to be in game. Please read the thread and your own FAQ. The crafting is considered to be done pre-creation. There is no 'Are you going to let him take 21 days to craft', it's all done before the game starts. He just starts with way more items than WBL. So I don't see why you're ridiculing someone for stating what your FAQ allows. Honestly Sean, you're saying things that make no sense.
So much nerdrage over how the rules were always intended...
I guess I can sort of understand it. Who would've thought that the crafting feats had a concrete use, not dependent on the GM's world?
And I think for a class that doesn't actually use weapons, it's fair to say "your offensive magic items are weapons for this purpose." And for one that doesn't use items, it's fair to say "your defensive magic items are armor for this purpose." Thus, a wand of fireball counts as a weapon, an amulet of natural armor and bracers of armor count as armor.
The point being, that even breaking it down like that, he can double his wealth by just taking 25% for offensive, 25% for defensive items, and then 50% for everything else, all with CWI.
That's more the fault of craft wondrous item than anything else.
A fighter can easily afford to take Master Craftsman and CMA&A to "double" his weapon budget. And increase his defensive budget by some amount not easily determined since defensive items include rings and cloaks and such.
I'm not upset about the ruling, I think it's a bad one, and I am houseruling it, but I am upset about the Dev who made it turning around and saying we're doing it wrong for following the FAQ as he wrote it. Saying we're giving someone 21 days when it's the FAQ that's doing it.
And for a 20th level character it's rather minor. You chose 10th level but since WBL covers 19 levels, it's not really fair to arbitrarily choose level 10. What about a +2 sword? It's about the same as Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Focus, and Weapon Specialization. That's three feats for a total of 4,000 gold.Bob, a couple things to consider;
First, its not a +2 sword versus no sword at all, its a +2 sword versus a +1 sword and as much wealth again spent elsewhere. The non-crafter still has something to account for his portion of the wealth.
Second, you can't compare a +2 weapon to those three feats anyway; they're not exclusive. You can have both the feats and the weapon. And whats more, the non-crafter is likely to have a feat on the crafter, and will eventually also have the weapon. its simply a matter of having such a weapon later, at which point he also has a feat.
Third, and this comes from the Second point... eventually, items stop improving. Weapons only get so good. Eventually, the crafter and the non-crafter will both have the weapons they need or want, at which point... the non-crafter also has his extra feats. This is true as levelling too, as the crafter will be limited by resources and more importantly time, as well as factors like caps on how high you can push enhancement bonuses on weapons and such.
I was trying to show that you can't just compare feat expenditure and gold expenditure. I may not have gotten that across as well as I intended.
You chose 10th level but since WBL covers 19 levels, it's not really fair to arbitrarily choose level 10. What about a +2 sword? It's about the same as Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Focus, and Weapon Specialization.I selected my comparison based on
a.) Comparing ONE feat to another ONE feat
b.) selecting a feat for comparison that is widely considered one of the more powerful feats (Improved Init)
c.) Selecting level 10 which is right in the middle of the 20 levels
I made an effort to not stack the deck, but rather to make a reasonable comparison (based on those three points).Now, tell me, what led you to believe that the comparison you made was the most reasonable one? It looks to me like you were trying to stack the deck. Tell me why you don't think you were.
My point was that there isn't a reasonable comparison. There are too many variables.
Actually, Jason is lead designer at Paizo, but that doesn't mean nobody elseat Paizo designed, gave feedback on, or suggested any of the rules in the Core Rulebook. And PF is based on D&D 3e, which was designed by Monte, Skip, Jonathan, and many other people at Wizards of the Coast, of which I am one.Yes, while Jason is lead designer at Paizo, others helped work on the core rules. You didn't.
While PF is based on 3e which was designed by Monte, Skip, Jonathon, et al, you had no part in designing the 3e core rules.
What you did work on was 3e Forgotten Realms (which I've never heard anything good about and a whole lot of bad about).
Outside of rules, though, to be fair, I've heard nothing but good about your ability to write fluff (and don't take that as a back handed complement, I have a lot of respect for good fluff).
HAHAAHA, you're basing your opinion on SKR on someone else's opinion of a world that he helped work on? So you have no personal experience with his work. Only hearsay?
As for his not working on 3E, my 3.0 Player's Handbook has him listed as one of the R&D Contributors. Maybe it's a typo.
My Pathfinder Core Rule Book also has him listed under "Additional Design." Another typo perhaps?
And I think for a class that doesn't actually use weapons, it's fair to say "your offensive magic items are weapons for this purpose." And for one that doesn't use items, it's fair to say "your defensive magic items are armor for this purpose." Thus, a wand of fireball counts as a weapon, an amulet of natural armor and bracers of armor count as armor.
The point being, that even breaking it down like that, he can double his wealth by just taking 25% for offensive, 25% for defensive items, and then 50% for everything else, all with CWI.
That's more the fault of craft wondrous item than anything else.
A fighter can easily afford to take Master Craftsman and CMA&A to "double" his weapon budget. And increase his defensive budget by some amount not easily determined since defensive items include rings and cloaks and such.
Nope, because if you read the Master Craftsman feat, you can only pick one craft feat. Since the craft feats are 'Craft(Arms)', 'Craft(Armor)', and 'Craft(Bows)', he can only ever create magical items that are either weapons (non bows), armor, or bows. He can't use Craft(Arms) with the MC feat to create magic armor.
Honestly MC is worthless for weapons/armor.
Yes, while Jason is lead designer at Paizo, others helped work on the core rules. You didn't.
While PF is based on 3e which was designed by Monte, Skip, Jonathon, et al, you had no part in designing the 3e core rules.
What you did work on was 3e Forgotten Realms (which I've never heard anything good about and a whole lot of bad about).
Disregarding the fact that you're wrong for a second (my Core Rulebook for PF and PHB for 3e both list SKR as having contributed), are you seriously using "you didn't work on those things" to try to discredit Sean K Reynolds' arguments?
Even if it were the case, at best you could be accused of pot calling the kettle black, since I've seen no contributions to the RPG industry in your name. As it stands, you're the pot calling the rainbow black.
Yes, while Jason is lead designer at Paizo, others helped work on the core rules. You didn't.
Wrong.
While PF is based on 3e which was designed by Monte, Skip, Jonathon, et al, you had no part in designing the 3e core rules.
Wrong.
What you did work on was 3e Forgotten Realms
And core D&D 3E. And Greyhawk. And Ravenloft. And Birthright. And Dragonlance. But that's okay.
(which I've never heard anything good about and a whole lot of bad about).
I guess the Best Roleplaying Supplement Origins Award for the 3E Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting was for the pretty pictures. It's not like I've ever had diehard Greyhawk fans who hate the Realms ever tell me, "your book made me want to run games in FR." Oops, except I have had that happen.
You will never find me being a professional game designer as I couldn't handle the massive pay cut down to what even the best game designer makes.
Stay classy!
No, you did. And you didn't require it to be in game. Please read the thread and your own FAQ. The crafting is considered to be done pre-creation. There is no 'Are you going to let him take 21 days to craft', it's all done before the game starts. He just starts with way more items than WBL. So I don't see why you're ridiculing someone for stating what your FAQ allows. Honestly Sean, you're saying things that make no sense.
Sorry, I was a little distracted when I wrote that.
|
No, you did. And you didn't require it to be in game. Please read the thread and your own FAQ. The crafting is considered to be done pre-creation. There is no 'Are you going to let him take 21 days to craft', it's all done before the game starts. He just starts with way more items than WBL. So I don't see why you're ridiculing someone for stating what your FAQ allows. Honestly Sean, you're saying things that make no sense.Sorry, I was a little distracted when I wrote that.
No worries, happens to all of us when we try to post while also trying to check out a lady.
My point was that there isn't a reasonable comparison. There are too many variables.Then you didn't even come close to making your point.
To make your point, you should make several reasonable comparisons, defend the choices made in making those comparisons, and show that they lead to different results.
Cherry picking to come up with something different doesn't achieve your goal.
You have to defend the choices made in your comparisons.
Actually, cherry picking was the point. It's what you did and it's why I chose a few different ones. I'm not going to go into a detailed analysis of any of them. The simple fact is that not all feats are equal and you can't just arbitrarily compare their value in gold to a table with ever increasing values that would cause their relative value to drop.
1.) You're right. I made an ad hominem (namely that since SKR has a long list of rules that have gone over like a ham sandwich at a Jewish picnic, that his ruling in this case is wrong). I was wrong for doing that and I apologize for doing it.
You've been able to name one, and it's not even one that is universally despised as you are implying. The Forgotten Realms did very well and was very well received by many people.
Honestly, regardless of your own personal opinion of someone who's work you are only tangentially familiar with, he must be good at his job otherwise he wouldn't have been working with Dungeons and Dragons products for essentially 4 different iterations and three companies along with working with several 3rd Party Publishers that are considered some of the top in the industry.
You also don't know every rule, feat, spell, class, etc, that he has written. The books don't give credit that way so you have no way of knowing if your favorite class or race is so awesome because of his work.
No, you did. And you didn't require it to be in game. Please read the thread and your own FAQ. The crafting is considered to be done pre-creation. There is no 'Are you going to let him take 21 days to craft', it's all done before the game starts. He just starts with way more items than WBL. So I don't see why you're ridiculing someone for stating what your FAQ allows. Honestly Sean, you're saying things that make no sense.Sorry, I was a little distracted when I wrote that.
No problem. Just confused the issue a bit. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
3.) You will never find me being a professional game designer as I couldn't handle the massive pay cut down to what even the best game designer makes.
I doubt that's the only or even main reason I won't find you being a professional game designer. Or amateur. I don't think I've seen any posts of yours displaying the creativity, interesting concepts or universal appeal that a game designer needs to be capable of demonstrating on a regular basis. Normally I wouldn't bother to point this out, but you seem to be engaging in puffery.
I mean, I'm a former soldier, and I could easily say that you won't find me challenging Michael Phelps in the Olympics because I don't have time for that with my school schedule. It's true, functionally, since I don't have time to train for the Olympics. It just sort of ignores the fact that I'm not an Olympic level athlete.
Also, yeah, not all feats are equal. Skill Focus gives a 30% better chance to succeed at a given task (at 10th level), while Weapon Focus gives a 5% better chance (at any level). Improved Critical (battleaxe) changes critical threats by 5%, while Improved Critical (rapier) improves them by 15%. Weapon Specialization improves a dagger's average damage output (before Str) by 80%. It only improves a greatsword's average damage output by 28%. Even a cursory look at feats sees that they fall within a range of powers.